You are not logged in.
Great idea!
Think how many "butts on bikes" could be gained for $500 each average for bike/training/admin. with only $1 million.
What does a mile of "protected" bike lane cost and how many new riders would it likely create and over what area of the city?
https://communityimpact.com/austin/nort … mmunities/
Instead, how much culture change could we get for $23M?
What else?
I'd suggest a grant program to supply bicycles, even electric assist bicycles, for residents to use for transportation--with grants conditioned on training in safe riding practices and documenting regular actual use.
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/south- … udy-finds-
Per a study published in Forbes, we've got it worse than I'd thought
The journalist seems confused over whether the plan involves speed cushions vs. speed bumps--maybe underqualified to write about traffic issues?
Jeezus! I would encourage involving the police despite not having much to lead them, in case there were/will be other assaults by the same people --to help build the case.
More practical for most roads than this one https://www.macalester.edu/mscs/multime … wheelbike/ but this one is probably easier to maintain.
I had not noticed the news
https://www.statesman.com/story/busines … 743913007/
that driver-less cars were around Austin.
I started noticing them in late March but only going west on Enfield toward Mopac (turning north before getting that far). At first I thought they were street mapping camera cars, but I re-thought that when I was seeing them seemingly on the same route and usually two or more at a time--so I assumed they were in a testing phase.
Saw one today moving north on Guadalupe toward 38-1/2. So I suppose they are to be contended with and not just testing.
"A Cruise spokesperson . . . said if a cyclist had been directly alongside the Cruise vehicle in the bike lane, sensors would’ve picked up on it and triggered the vehicle not to veer over."
So maybe better than a human driver! A bike coming up on the right of a car near an intersection is something the car's driver is less likely to notice. See #7: https://bicyclesafe.com/ It's a dangerous mistake to make, rushing up along the right side of a car near an intersection. In fact, a driver (including a self-driving car), can make things safer for cyclists by merging to the curb before making a right turn to help prevent the cyclist from moving into that dangerous position. Yes, even when there's a bike lane, and arguably even more so then. https://www.thewashcycle.com/2010/07/dr … right.html
Don't get me wrong, I'm not too pumped about the idea of driverless cars, but I wouldn't be surprised if (1) the driverless car would be less likely to right hook (because it presumably would have sensors and wouldn't be distracted by a cell phone or what) or (2) people would force driverless cars to be programmed to always stay out of the bike lane when they really would be better if programmed to merge into the bike lane for certain conditions.
I wouldn't be writing about a PITCH FOR A NEW ARTICLE, I'd be writing to DRAW ATTENTION TO MISINFO IN AN ARTICLE THAT WAS ALREADY PUBLISHED.
.
You are right, of course. The pitch address was the only means of contact I could find. In the old days, a snail mail letter to the editor was possible but the website lacks even that information as far as I can see.
I agree that Abell is a plus
Send Training-Health-Nutrition Pitches To: BICservice /at/ hearst.com
that was well-hidden
That's a pity. As I argued at the time, when Austin Cycling Assoc. was discussing the transformation into Bike Austin, pedestrian issues and cyclist issues aren't a good match--Like with the LAB, getting the pedestrian interests in the mix is bad for cyclists' interests.
https://slate.com/business/2022/08/golf … -city.html
The piece proposes that the electric golf cart may be our urban transportation future. This riffs off a Harvard Business School piece that finds Tesla and the like aren't disruptive technologies--they are a way of extending the status quo. I do know that in recent years Texas has had a number of bills proposed to liberalize on-road use of golf carts for short trips and I have more frequently seen golf carts on roads seemingly going to places like the nearby convenience store.
I remember the pro-Segway "Ginger" points on short electric mobility, and also see similar points about the rental scooters, but this is a bit different an idea since we'd still have the parking burden for the carts, the carts can't (and that may be a good thing!) share the sidewalks, we'd still likely be talking of one or more owned per family (though maybe the scooter/bike model of app-based pick up where it is found and drop at the destination would work for a cart too, if it can be parked OK). I see the cart as falling where today into the same space where I'd say, "walk or ride your bike instead of driving a car." If nothing else, maybe the carts could replace a significant percentage of "second cars" in addition to being a viable alternative to driving the pickup one mile to the store.
We might say "ditto, electric bikes" and I see a lot more of those on the roads too, but I'd wager that we might find more adopters of 4-wheel electric carts than "electric motor cycles/mopeds" for the (not necessarily so justified) personal safety concerns. Plus the idea that a propane tank for the grill might be a hard thing to fetch by motorized bike.
Well, in terms of promoting safety, I had wonder whether putting an obstacle in the roadway that can so damage automobile wheels and tires is that good an idea. Isn't there a fair likelihood that a driver may lose control of the vehicle when that happens? Can a cyclist or motorcyclist run into or over the obstacle and stay upright? Does the obstacle actually help improve safety for cyclists? Studies vary in results. Note this study: https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2193 It tends to endorse heavy separation, with the necessary cautions about safety results only when avoiding frequent intersections and the resulting conflicts and avoiding high speeds (such as not having barriers on downhill portions) .
Bounty system is a good idea. It has worked pretty well, I understand, for the NYC anti-idling program.
https://www.salon.com/2022/02/18/the-ac … h-of-that/
(depending on the car, of course) Lifetime Cost of Owning a Car (study https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a … via%3Dihub ): $1mm
I, for one, think that Sheldon Brown was almost always right on the bicycling subjects he addressed.
I understand that some adult-sized balance bikes are available to Bike Austin instructors.
interesting to see a balance bike sized to fit older kids/grown ups. https://striderbikes.com/buy/shop-all/b … -20-sport/
"end of their neighborhood as they know it."
I didn't realize street striping and parking are what defines a neighborhood!
Turns out that Austin neighborhoods are made entirely of slippery slopes.
I have seen both pro and con on balance bikes, but it seems that balance bikes are the way to go. They allow kids to get the hang of the balance without worrying about the pedal motion. Both my grandkids learned quickly on balance bikes.
I think they are a great way to go too. My grandnephew learned quickly and well on one and I've seen lots of kids ride them around. In contrast, a friend's father bought his grandson a coaster brake bike with training wheels when the kid was 2-1/2, an age I've seen kids learn balance biking quickly. Not only was it functionally a tricycle for steering, but he could back pedal to use the coaster brakes only when he was thinking about it--and every time the bike got going fast, he quit thinking about how the brakes worked and couldn't stop himself. It was the darnedest thing to watch. After that, I had thought 2-1/2 too young for learning to ride, but after seeing kids on balance bikes, that's a good time to start them off.
Who knew this already?
It's why training wheels teach kids the opposite of the right way to steer a bike. Without training wheels, one learns to do it without thinking about it.
Understanding the principle can, with some practice, save your life.
The Stassney bike lane project has evolved over time and now has "protection" in the form of pylons and Austin's own monster-sized "Bots dots" concrete bumpers. That's a usual route for me on weekends, so I've ridden it quite a number of times as it has evolved.
Stassney was good to ride on in the pre-bike-lane-era. Bike lanes didn't hurt. Might have helped. The pylons and barriers as configured, IMO, have made it worse than it ever was.
Watch the confused behavior of motorists on that stretch. They pull out across the lane and stop before making turns right or left on to Stassney. The pylons and bumpers prevent drivers from doing as they should and safely merging to the curb before making right turns from Stassney to side streets or curb cuts to parking lots. The pylons leave following cyclists in the driver's blind spot--praying, I suppose, that the driver will signal the turn. As flatau put it, above, "A fundamental design guideline for bicycle facilities is to not require drivers to do anything different."
On Saturday, the Stassney "protection" pylons operated as predicted. I came up on a large number of branches in the bike lane that had been felled by the recent winds, well-hidden in the shade of the remaining branches above, so there was little warning about the problem ahead. Had the pylons not been there, I easily could have checked over my shoulder for overtaking traffic, and safely gone left around the branches. With the pylons, my only option was to brake hard and make complicated maneuvers through and around them--the pylons made a simple situation pretty dangerous. A "person who rides bikes" cannot watch out for pylons ahead and watch out for traffic behind at the same time.
And a kicker--now I see a lot more "salmon" riding-- people contraflow in those lanes. It seems the pylons send a message to a significant number of people that the rules of the road don't apply there.
Branches, glass, dogs on long leashes, motorists pulling out across the lane or turning across the lane, pedestrians crossing the lane, joggers in the lane, "salmon" riders--all of these hazards require a "person who rides bikes" to have more skill and more situational awareness to handle the "protected" bike lane than they would without the "protection."
(edited to add: it hasn't been a problem for me because of my usual routes, but the pylons and bumpers are a real problem for a cyclist who wants to make a left anywhere along the stretch)
(edited to add: The pylons are a problem for those westbound motorists wanting to turn right into the DQ parking lot--evidenced by my nearly being right-hooked on Nov. 11--An F-250 driver (not signalling) barely noticed me at the last instant because he was having trouble looking behind into the bike lane and looking ahead to avoid the pylons. Had I not anticipated the problem, it could have turned out badly. What else would you expect by forcing right-turning traffic to cross the path of forward-moving traffic in the driver's rear blind spot? The "protected" bike lane requires expert skills from riders. )
There is good reason for your preference. From the p.o.v. of one interested in cyclists' safety for those using Manor or Cherrywood to get around, decades of experience globally shows that this sort of shared-use side path is more dangerous than no cycling accommodation at all, and more dangerous than the current configuration as well. From the p.o.v. of one interested in pedestrian safety, it looks like a fine plan, but only if it were modified to keep the bikes off the path. How much is the city spending to make it worse? What does it take to show that a cyclist is not some type of pedestrian?
Article about new Living Streets Program, expanidng the Healthy Streets program: https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2 … g-streets/
City site on that: https://www.austinlivingstreets.com/home
No argument.
Neither account has the detail of whether it was a matter of hit from behind or right hook, for instance, so it's hard to get a picture.
It is odd that this garbled account seems to treat the cyclist as a pedestrian with a vehicle at the same time.
[ Generated in 0.109 seconds, 7 queries executed - Memory usage: 645.8 KiB (Peak: 684.79 KiB) ]