From execdir at sdcbc.org Tue Jan 2 12:33:53 2007 From: execdir at sdcbc.org (Kathy Keehan) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 09:33:53 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Ride and Learns for January Message-ID: <003c01c72e94$2c2cf5d0$6401a8c0@KathyDell> Due to the increased demand for these fun rides, we're going to try for TWO Ride and Learns in January. Sunday, January 14th. See Escondido from the seat of your bicycle! Just in time to get informed about bicycling in Escondido before the City begins the work on the Escondido Bicycle Master Plan, we'll be taking a spin. Meet at the Escondido Public Library, corner of Kalmia and 3rd, at 9:15 a.m. for a 9:30 ride start. Sunday, January 21st. Back by popular demand - Downtown San Diego Ride and Learn. Come with us and see the beautiful architecture and little known bikeways in downtown. We'll meet at the Star of India on Harbor Drive at 9:15 for a 9:30 ride start. Hope to see you at one or both of these fun rides! ----------------------------------- Kathy Keehan Executive Director San Diego County Bicycle Coalition P.O. Box 34544 San Diego, CA 92163 858.487.6063 execdir at sdcbc.org From execdir at sdcbc.org Tue Jan 2 12:33:54 2007 From: execdir at sdcbc.org (Kathy Keehan) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 09:33:54 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Whom to report road hazards? In-Reply-To: <4598882D.7010202@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <004301c72e94$2c937fd0$6401a8c0@KathyDell> Hi Robert, 1. Mast is in Santee, so you should call them about the signs. Your best bet is to try Community Services Department at 619.258.4100x222. They've also got a web email link at http://www.ci.santee.ca.us/contactlist.htm - click 'email CSD'. 2. This would be Caltrans. Bob James is the bike coordinator and he's very good at getting them to rectify bike issues. You can call him at 619.688.4206 or email bob_james at dot.ca.gov 3. No worries on catching the SUV driver. I missed an opportunity yesterday to catch a driver's ed student who passed me WAY too closely. We can't get them all. Glad he didn't startle you enough to make you fall down! Kathy -----Original Message----- From: sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org [mailto:sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org]On Behalf Of Robert Leone Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 8:04 PM To: Sdcbc Subject: [SDCBC] Whom to report road hazards? Dear SDCBC: I'll use the on line reporting tool at www.sandiego.gov whatever the street department is to report all the loose gravel in the Kearny Villa Road bike lane southbond between Black Mountain and the first other intersection (I'll find it on the map), but what about these other hazards> 1. "Road Construction Ahead" signs squarely in the bike lane on westbound Mast Avenue between, oh, Cuyamaca and Vomac (I don't recall precisely where, I was too busy checking my rear for the merge into the lane to note street signs). It's in Santee, right? Do they have on on line reporting facility or an e-mail address for road hazard reports? 2. A huge amount of white glazed ceramic fragments (I'm thinking toilet shipment) litter SR-52's bike route shoulder area westbound about a half or a quarter of a mile east of the summit. Is that Cal-Trans? Whom should I contact for a sweeping up there? 3. A big ol' apology is due to every cyclist in San Diego for my failure to catch and point out the bike route signs to the SUV driver (white, smaller than a H1, H2 or H3) who was practicing his "startle/you don't belong here" honking skills. Sorry gang. Thanks for your patience. Robert Leone _______________________________________________ You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as execdir at sdcbc.org To unsubscribe or change mailing options, go to http://www.bikesandiego.org/mailman/listinfo/sdcbc List privacy information is located at http://www.stickman-computing.org/aup For help or to talk with someone other than the mail robot, send e-mail to postmaster at stickman-computing.org From rob_leone at earthlink.net Wed Jan 3 07:15:19 2007 From: rob_leone at earthlink.net (Robert Leone) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 04:15:19 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Thanks for hazard reporting phone numbers. Message-ID: <459B9E57.6050502@earthlink.net> Dear Folks: Thanks for the hazard reporting phone number tips. The folks from Santee think the signs on Mast come from an SDG7E contractor, the person who answered the CalTrans phone said they'd let the work crews know.... Robert Leone From JimBaross at cox.net Thu Jan 4 15:48:27 2007 From: JimBaross at cox.net (Jim Baross) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 12:48:27 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] another stolen bike notice... Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070104124656.035a28b0@cox.net> Forwarded message.... >Subject: stolen bike in Point Loma >Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 12:28:07 -0800 >From: "Hal Gibson" >To: > >Hi All- > >Sorry if this is inappropriate, but a friend's custom TREK road bike >was stolen out of his garage in Point Loma last night (night of >January 3 / 4, 2007). The bike is red, flamed, with 3 gears in front >and 6 in the rear. > >I have the serial number if that helps. > >Any info is appreciated. > > >Hal W. Gibson > > >Krause, Kalfayan, Benink & Slavens LLP >625 Broadway, Suite 635 >San Diego, CA 92101 >(619) 232-0331 >hgibson at kkbs-law.com > >The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only >for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named >above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or >work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the >reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent >responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are >hereby notified that you have received this document in error and >that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this >message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and >delete the original message. > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Subject: confirm 64ad9986420a35806300797e18e8b008e063e5b4 >Sender: sdcbc-request at bikesandiego.org >From: sdcbc-request at bikesandiego.org > >If you reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact, >Mailman will discard the held message. Do this if the message is >spam. If you reply to this message and include an Approved: header >with the list password in it, the message will be approved for posting >to the list. The Approved: header can also appear in the first line >of the body of the reply. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070104/fefb7b57/attachment-0001.html From JimBaross at cox.net Thu Jan 4 17:50:56 2007 From: JimBaross at cox.net (Jim Baross) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 14:50:56 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Fwd: SDCBC stolen bike is a Serotta... Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070104144931.035a2d88@cox.net> More info... ask for photo if you want one. >Subject: stolen bike in Pt. Loma (with picture) >Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 12:56:29 -0800 >From: "Hal Gibson" >To: > >Hi all- > >I was mistaken as to the make of the bike- it's a Serotta. > >I've attached a picture of the bike to this email, but I don't know >if that will work on your board, so if anyone wants a pic of the >bike just email me and I'll send one. > >Thanks again! > > >Hal W. Gibson > > >Krause, Kalfayan, Benink & Slavens LLP >625 Broadway, Suite 635 >San Diego, CA 92101 >(619) 232-0331 >hgibson at kkbs-law.com > >The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only >for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named >above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or >work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the >reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent >responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are >hereby notified that you have received this document in error and >that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this >message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and >delete the original message. > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Subject: confirm c6f0d17fb835a04817f1cf0d6a9d9a964d47e897 >Sender: sdcbc-request at bikesandiego.org >From: sdcbc-request at bikesandiego.org > >If you reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact, >Mailman will discard the held message. Do this if the message is >spam. If you reply to this message and include an Approved: header >with the list password in it, the message will be approved for posting >to the list. The Approved: header can also appear in the first line >of the body of the reply. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070104/8e9ecbcd/attachment.html From kking002 at san.rr.com Fri Jan 5 14:10:07 2007 From: kking002 at san.rr.com (Kenneth King) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:10:07 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scorrlaws In-Reply-To: <003c01c72e94$2c2cf5d0$6401a8c0@KathyDell> Message-ID: <001201c730fd$203b6110$c901a8c0@Ken> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/29/opinion/29fri2.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref= slogin From j.eldon at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 5 17:18:19 2007 From: j.eldon at sbcglobal.net (John Eldon) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 14:18:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scorrlaws Message-ID: <20070105221819.13721.qmail@web52507.mail.yahoo.com> Other than by setting a good example, just how are we lawful vehicular bicyclists expected to control the unwashed masses? ----- Original Message ---- From: Kenneth King To: Kathy Keehan ; Sdcbc Sent: Friday, January 5, 2007 11:10:07 AM Subject: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scorrlaws http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/29/opinion/29fri2.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref= slogin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070105/f0973638/attachment.html From execdir at sdcbc.org Fri Jan 5 18:03:38 2007 From: execdir at sdcbc.org (Kathy Keehan) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 15:03:38 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scorrlaws In-Reply-To: <20070105221819.13721.qmail@web52507.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004101c7311d$bc6867c0$6401a8c0@KathyDell> Peer pressure. Nagging. Club rules. Teaching our kids. :-) Kathy -----Original Message----- From: John Eldon [mailto:j.eldon at sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 2:18 PM To: kking002 at san.rr.com; Kathy Keehan; Sdcbc Subject: Re: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scorrlaws Other than by setting a good example, just how are we lawful vehicular bicyclists expected to control the unwashed masses? ----- Original Message ---- From: Kenneth King To: Kathy Keehan ; Sdcbc Sent: Friday, January 5, 2007 11:10:07 AM Subject: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scorrlaws http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/29/opinion/29fri2.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ore f= slogin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070105/2b3e2395/attachment.html From forester at johnforester.com Fri Jan 5 18:34:51 2007 From: forester at johnforester.com (John Forester) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:34:51 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scorrlaws In-Reply-To: <20070105221819.13721.qmail@web52507.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20070105221819.13721.qmail@web52507.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070105151104.02baa6f8@johnforester.com> John Eldon asked, with respect to a New York Times article on New York's Critical Mass: "Other than by setting a good example, just how are we lawful vehicular bicyclists expected to control the unwashed masses?" We cannot control the unlawful and incompetent cyclists. Only society can do that and it is its duty to do so. Oh, I do not mean as large an effort as is used to control robbery and burglary and immigrant smuggling and such, but something commensurate with the problem. However, this our society refuses to do. Not only does it refuse to do this, but its actions and policies show that it prefers incompetent and unlawful cyclists to lawful and competent cyclists. It would cost our society nothing, and probably save money into the bargain, were our society to stop the acts and policies that demonstrate favoritism for incompetent and unlawful cycling. The underlying policy that can be deduced from the acts of our society regarding cycling is that it prefers having a clear way for motorists to having lawful and competent cyclists. Therefore, it frightens bicycle users as far to the right, and off the roadway if possible, and it justifies this by presenting illogical, counterfactual, and self-contradictory excuses. As long as our society continues in this mode, in which it has operated for sixty years or so, then its members have no right to expect, and should have no expectation, of anything other than incompetent, unlawful, and even scofflaw, behavior by the majority of bicyclists. The fact that there are a few cyclists who have learned, without the help of government or society, and contrary to their attitudes, to operate lawfully and competently, should be seen as an unexpected benefit to society. John Forester, MS, PE Bicycle Transportation Engineer 7585 Church St. Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306 619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com From bikes.alot at cox.net Fri Jan 5 18:28:00 2007 From: bikes.alot at cox.net (Bicyclist) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:28:00 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scorrlaws In-Reply-To: <004101c7311d$bc6867c0$6401a8c0@KathyDell> References: <20070105221819.13721.qmail@web52507.mail.yahoo.com> <004101c7311d$bc6867c0$6401a8c0@KathyDell> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070105152124.036a9978@cox.net> We aren't expected or empowered to "control the unwashed" (though I have tried), but we can spread the word. Tell a friend... and all your associates. Support appropriate training for those involved with traffic law enforcement and then encourage and support enforcement of traffic law. Dispelling the very widespread perception (and often the misbehavior that comes from the perception) that bicycling doesn't belong in with other traffic would be a big advancement for our - often - chosen mode. At 03:03 PM 1/5/2007, Kathy Keehan wrote: >Peer pressure. Nagging. Club rules. Teaching our kids. :-) >Kathy >-----Original Message----- >From: John Eldon [mailto:j.eldon at sbcglobal.net] >Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 2:18 PM >To: kking002 at san.rr.com; Kathy Keehan; Sdcbc >Subject: Re: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scorrlaws > >Other than by setting a good example, just how are we lawful >vehicular bicyclists expected to control the unwashed masses? > >----- Original Message ---- >From: Kenneth King >To: Kathy Keehan ; Sdcbc >Sent: Friday, January 5, 2007 11:10:07 AM >Subject: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scorrlaws > >http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/29/opinion/29fri2.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref= >slogin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070105/90eb1c03/attachment.html From sachiwilson at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 5 18:54:49 2007 From: sachiwilson at sbcglobal.net (Sachi Wilson) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 15:54:49 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scorrlaws In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070105151104.02baa6f8@johnforester.com> References: <20070105221819.13721.qmail@web52507.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105151104.02baa6f8@johnforester.com> Message-ID: On 5 Jan 2007, at 3:34 pm, John Forester wrote: > However, this our society refuses to do. Not only does it refuse to > do this, but its actions and policies show that it prefers > incompetent and unlawful cyclists to lawful and competent cyclists. I disagree that this is a conscious preference. It's social ignorance. Society has no clue, really, what it "prefers" for cyclists. When you talk to people who do not cycle seriously, once you get past the "keep them on the sidewalks and trails" mentality, they DO begin to see that it is the incompetent and unlawful cyclists who cause the great majority of the problems that THEY perceive. And then they start listening . . . So really, even :society: can have a preference for lawful and competent cycling behavior, _once they are educated_ in what that behavior can do for them. That is the key and the problem -- trying to educate not just cycists, but people who don;t think they even care about cycling. Sachi Sachi From trevorspoke at cox.net Fri Jan 5 19:51:59 2007 From: trevorspoke at cox.net (Trevor Bourget) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:51:59 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scorrlaws In-Reply-To: References: <20070105221819.13721.qmail@web52507.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105151104.02baa6f8@johnforester.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070105164339.02729d88@cox.net> At 03:54 PM 1/5/2007, Sachi Wilson wrote: >I disagree that this is a conscious preference. It's social >ignorance. Society has no clue, really, what it "prefers" for >cyclists. I have to disagree. Watch people who ride bikes or walk, and you can see that they would not prefer to have to worry about what "rules" they should be following, and they would rather not follow the rules they are "supposed to" know about. People walk across streets wherever they want, ignoring crosswalks. They ride bikes in whichever direction they prefer, and on the sidewalk or in the roadway, as their whim dictates. People consider driving to be "work", and bike riding and walking to be "play". People who try to make "work" out of cycling, by suggesting it does or should have rules, are perceived as spoiling the fun. Many people who don't ride a bike very often have one, and they don't want to have their fun ruined when they take their bike to the park or on their next vacation. The interesting part is the "having their cake and eating it too" mentality, because it's the consequence of lawlessness that bicycle "club cyclists" play on the streets, ignoring stop signs and traffic lights. The choices of a lawful cyclist are unfortunately seen in the same light, so drivers don't know that these riders are choosing lane position by a different set of criteria than "because I want to". -- Trevor From forester at johnforester.com Fri Jan 5 21:29:51 2007 From: forester at johnforester.com (John Forester) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:29:51 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scorrlaws In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070105164339.02729d88@cox.net> References: <20070105221819.13721.qmail@web52507.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105151104.02baa6f8@johnforester.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105164339.02729d88@cox.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070105172226.02b8c008@johnforester.com> Well, two different points of view, both of which have considerable merit but neither of which dig sufficiently deep to understand what they have in common. My comments are below. Sachi Wilson wrote: "I disagree that this is a conscious preference. It's social ignorance. Society has no clue, really, what it "prefers" for cyclists. When you talk to people who do not cycle seriously, once you get past the "keep them on the sidewalks and trails" mentality, they DO begin to see that it is the incompetent and unlawful cyclists who cause the great majority of the problems that THEY perceive. And then they start listening . . . So really, even "society" can have a preference for lawful and competent cycling behavior, _once they are educated_ in what that behavior can do for them. That is the key and the problem -- trying to educate not just cyclists, but people who don't think they even care about cycling." To whichTrevor Bourget replied: "I have to disagree. Watch people who ride bikes or walk, and you can see that they would not prefer to have to worry about what "rules" they should be following, and they would rather not follow the rules they are "supposed to" know about. People walk across streets wherever they want, ignoring crosswalks. They ride bikes in whichever direction they prefer, and on the sidewalk or in the roadway, as their whim dictates. People consider driving to be "work", and bike riding and walking to be "play". "People who try to make "work" out of cycling, by suggesting it does or should have rules, are perceived as spoiling the fun. Many people who don't ride a bike very often have one, and they don't want to have their fun ruined when they take their bike to the park or on their next vacation. "The interesting part is the "having their cake and eating it too" mentality, because it's the consequence of lawlessness that bicycle "club cyclists" play on the streets, ignoring stop signs and traffic lights. The choices of a lawful cyclist are unfortunately seen in the same light, so drivers don't know that these riders are choosing lane position by a different set of criteria than "because I want to"." Sarah has offered the explanation of social ignorance, while Trevor has offered the explanation of cycling as play. Not so different, are these? Well, we'll see. Before we proceed, I differ a bit with Trevor's criticism of pedestrians crossing the street anywhere, "ignoring crosswalks." Pedestrians are allowed to cross streets at any point, except when crosswalks exist nearby. There are two different issues about ignoring the presence of crosswalks: safety and traffic control. The safety issue is very dubious; professional opinion has not clearly adopted the view that crossing in crosswalks presents less risk of accident, or the opposite view that using crosswalks is as dangerous, or more dangerous, than not using them. The issue of traffic control concerns the effect of pedestrians upon the flow of motor traffic. While there are places where pedestrian traffic controls motor traffic (parts of Manhattan Island, NY, for example), in most places I think that pedestrians are pretty careful not to put themselves in a position where their safety requires a significant change in the flow of motor traffic. I think that introducing pedestrians to this discussion does nothing to further the discussion of cyclist behavior. Attributing these instances to social ignorance, or to the desire that cycling be play, ignores the role of society in creating these attitudes. For example, while Sachi writes that people are ignorant about cycling, she also writes that they already have the "keep them on the sidewalks and trails mentality." That's not ignorance; that comes from somewhere. It is a standard principle of sociology that the preferences of people, and of societies, are shown far more accurately by their acts than by their words. It's what they do, not what they say, that is most important. Furthermore, it is a standard principle of psychology that people learn more intensely from acts than from words. Our society has spent very large efforts for eighty years or more to getting people to understand that motorists should operate as drivers of vehicles. Furthermore, our society has spent large sums building highways that are particularly suited for their users to operate as drivers of vehicles. I think that very few people would question these facts. During most of this time, from say 1940 on, our society has pushed cyclists to the extreme side of the roadway, or even off the roadway, and has since 1975 built bikeways to physically enforce those principles, while all the time saying that these measures are necessary because cyclists are incapable of operating as drivers of vehicles. People are not entirely unintelligent and unobservant; they see that these measures are the social norm, and they learn to believe that these social norms are the way that things should be. That is how societies function, and have always functioned. The fact that we competent and wish-to-be-lawful cyclists know far better than these superstitious social norms does not mean that we should not understand our predicament. Unless we do understand our predicament we will never be able to alleviate it. John Forester, MS, PE Bicycle Transportation Engineer 7585 Church St. Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306 619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com From nealhe at cox.net Fri Jan 5 21:45:37 2007 From: nealhe at cox.net (Neal Henderson) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 18:45:37 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scofflaws In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070105172226.02b8c008@johnforester.com> Message-ID: <000901c7313c$bf2d6310$6901a8c0@NealDesk> Hello All, Pedestrian Crosswalks ....... http://www.azdot.gov/highways/Traffic/XWalk.asp FOREWORD The Arizona Department of Transportation's crosswalk policy is based on research conducted over a seven-year period by the City of San Diego. The San Diego approach to evaluating crosswalk needs, which resulted from that research, has resulted in that city being consistently ranked as the safest pedestrian city in the nation. The San Diego study showed traffic engineers that nearly six pedestrian accidents were occurring in marked crosswalks for every one mishap in unmarked crosswalks (those unpainted crosswalks that exist by State law at all intersections). (emphasis added) When this ratio was adjusted in terms of relative crosswalk usage, there was still an impressive 2 to 1 difference in accidents. Cheers, Neal -----Original Message----- From: sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org [mailto:sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org] On Behalf Of John Forester Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 18:30 To: Trevor Bourget; Sachi Wilson; Sdcbc Subject: Re: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scorrlaws Well, two different points of view, both of which have considerable merit but neither of which dig sufficiently deep to understand what they have in common. My comments are below. Sachi Wilson wrote: "I disagree that this is a conscious preference. It's social ignorance. Society has no clue, really, what it "prefers" for cyclists. When you talk to people who do not cycle seriously, once you get past the "keep them on the sidewalks and trails" mentality, they DO begin to see that it is the incompetent and unlawful cyclists who cause the great majority of the problems that THEY perceive. And then they start listening . . . So really, even "society" can have a preference for lawful and competent cycling behavior, _once they are educated_ in what that behavior can do for them. That is the key and the problem -- trying to educate not just cyclists, but people who don't think they even care about cycling." To whichTrevor Bourget replied: "I have to disagree. Watch people who ride bikes or walk, and you can see that they would not prefer to have to worry about what "rules" they should be following, and they would rather not follow the rules they are "supposed to" know about. People walk across streets wherever they want, ignoring crosswalks. They ride bikes in whichever direction they prefer, and on the sidewalk or in the roadway, as their whim dictates. People consider driving to be "work", and bike riding and walking to be "play". "People who try to make "work" out of cycling, by suggesting it does or should have rules, are perceived as spoiling the fun. Many people who don't ride a bike very often have one, and they don't want to have their fun ruined when they take their bike to the park or on their next vacation. "The interesting part is the "having their cake and eating it too" mentality, because it's the consequence of lawlessness that bicycle "club cyclists" play on the streets, ignoring stop signs and traffic lights. The choices of a lawful cyclist are unfortunately seen in the same light, so drivers don't know that these riders are choosing lane position by a different set of criteria than "because I want to"." Sarah has offered the explanation of social ignorance, while Trevor has offered the explanation of cycling as play. Not so different, are these? Well, we'll see. Before we proceed, I differ a bit with Trevor's criticism of pedestrians crossing the street anywhere, "ignoring crosswalks." Pedestrians are allowed to cross streets at any point, except when crosswalks exist nearby. There are two different issues about ignoring the presence of crosswalks: safety and traffic control. The safety issue is very dubious; professional opinion has not clearly adopted the view that crossing in crosswalks presents less risk of accident, or the opposite view that using crosswalks is as dangerous, or more dangerous, than not using them. The issue of traffic control concerns the effect of pedestrians upon the flow of motor traffic. While there are places where pedestrian traffic controls motor traffic (parts of Manhattan Island, NY, for example), in most places I think that pedestrians are pretty careful not to put themselves in a position where their safety requires a significant change in the flow of motor traffic. I think that introducing pedestrians to this discussion does nothing to further the discussion of cyclist behavior. Attributing these instances to social ignorance, or to the desire that cycling be play, ignores the role of society in creating these attitudes. For example, while Sachi writes that people are ignorant about cycling, she also writes that they already have the "keep them on the sidewalks and trails mentality." That's not ignorance; that comes from somewhere. It is a standard principle of sociology that the preferences of people, and of societies, are shown far more accurately by their acts than by their words. It's what they do, not what they say, that is most important. Furthermore, it is a standard principle of psychology that people learn more intensely from acts than from words. Our society has spent very large efforts for eighty years or more to getting people to understand that motorists should operate as drivers of vehicles. Furthermore, our society has spent large sums building highways that are particularly suited for their users to operate as drivers of vehicles. I think that very few people would question these facts. During most of this time, from say 1940 on, our society has pushed cyclists to the extreme side of the roadway, or even off the roadway, and has since 1975 built bikeways to physically enforce those principles, while all the time saying that these measures are necessary because cyclists are incapable of operating as drivers of vehicles. People are not entirely unintelligent and unobservant; they see that these measures are the social norm, and they learn to believe that these social norms are the way that things should be. That is how societies function, and have always functioned. The fact that we competent and wish-to-be-lawful cyclists know far better than these superstitious social norms does not mean that we should not understand our predicament. Unless we do understand our predicament we will never be able to alleviate it. John Forester, MS, PE Bicycle Transportation Engineer 7585 Church St. Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306 619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com _______________________________________________ You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as nealhe at cox.net To unsubscribe or change mailing options, go to http://www.bikesandiego.org/mailman/listinfo/sdcbc List privacy information is located at http://www.stickman-computing.org/aup For help or to talk with someone other than the mail robot, send e-mail to postmaster at stickman-computing.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070105/7a6869af/attachment-0001.html From trevorspoke at cox.net Fri Jan 5 22:06:15 2007 From: trevorspoke at cox.net (Trevor Bourget) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:06:15 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scofflaws In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070105172226.02b8c008@johnforester.com> References: <20070105221819.13721.qmail@web52507.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105151104.02baa6f8@johnforester.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105164339.02729d88@cox.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105172226.02b8c008@johnforester.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070105184741.026a1e68@cox.net> At 06:29 PM 1/5/2007, John Forester wrote: >Attributing these instances to social ignorance, or to the desire >that cycling be play, ignores the role of society in creating these attitudes. Society is not a thing as you have tried to describe it. Saying that a group has actions is just shortcut talk for declaring the predominant (the "norm") action of particular individuals of the group. When I assert that eating while driving is normal, I merely mean that it has become common to do so. >Our society has spent very large efforts for eighty years or more to >getting people to understand that motorists should operate as >drivers of vehicles. Yes, when people operate dangerous equipment it is in all of our best interests that we be encouraged to use them safely, in order to avoid killing each other. It is the proper role of government to protect each of our rights by regulating each of us in order to protect the others. It is also the proper role of government to regulate corporations in order to protect individuals. >our society has pushed cyclists to the extreme side of the roadway, >or even off the roadway, and has since 1975 built bikeways to >physically enforce those principles, while all the time saying that >these measures are necessary because cyclists are incapable of >operating as drivers of vehicles. I asserted that while some cyclists may be capable of operating as drivers of vehicles, the majority of people who may ride a bicycle cannot be trusted to ride one according to the laws that govern motorists. Ignoring the issue of whether they could be taught the skills or the knowledge, I asserted that most individuals who ride bicycles do not want to obey any rules when they ride bicycles. They want to play. Using the word society as you did, I would say that "society thinks bike riding is play". I suggest that the best way for bicyclists who want to be treated as drivers of vehicles to get what they want is to be sure that all bicyclists who really do want to play are provided a separate playground, so that cyclists who ride in the roadway can be assumed to be operating according to vehicular traffic principles. This may require that bicyclists who want to ride in the roadway give up something, such as their freedom to operate without a proper bicycle driving license, perhaps even one that must be affixed visibly to their bicycle such as are required for motor vehicles. Other workable differentiations may be possible, but I can't think of any at the moment. I am interested to read what comments John Forester and others have to offer in response to these suggestions. -- Trevor From nnorth at cox.net Fri Jan 5 22:50:24 2007 From: nnorth at cox.net (nnorth) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 19:50:24 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scofflaws References: <20070105221819.13721.qmail@web52507.mail.yahoo.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070105151104.02baa6f8@johnforester.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070105164339.02729d88@cox.net><7.0.1.0.2.20070105172226.02b8c008@johnforester.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105184741.026a1e68@cox.net> Message-ID: <004501c73145$cd174ff0$6401a8c0@user63f9baab76> OK, one of my rare times to chime in. Watch drivers, cyclist (us), and walkers. A percentage will run/walk thru red lights and stop signs, and use the road in a generally unsafe way. It isn't the majority of any group. Just the noticable ones. I've seen trollies run red lights, busses turn in front of on coming cars who had green ligts (school busses, too), and counted 6 cars thru an intesection when I had the green. Un-fortunately, modern roads were built for cars. It will take a long concerted battle to re-educate society that we are, and belong there, too. Maybe 5$ gas, huh? In the mean time, lets get our culture to do it right. Kathy probably has it right "Peer pressure. Nagging. Club rules. Teaching our kids" Nick North ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Bourget" To: "John Forester" ; "Sachi Wilson" ; "Sdcbc" Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scofflaws > At 06:29 PM 1/5/2007, John Forester wrote: >>Attributing these instances to social ignorance, or to the desire >>that cycling be play, ignores the role of society in creating these >>attitudes. > > Society is not a thing as you have tried to describe it. Saying that > a group has actions is just shortcut talk for declaring the > predominant (the "norm") action of particular individuals of the > group. When I assert that eating while driving is normal, I merely > mean that it has become common to do so. > >>Our society has spent very large efforts for eighty years or more to >>getting people to understand that motorists should operate as >>drivers of vehicles. > > Yes, when people operate dangerous equipment it is in all of our best > interests that we be encouraged to use them safely, in order to avoid > killing each other. It is the proper role of government to protect > each of our rights by regulating each of us in order to protect the > others. It is also the proper role of government to regulate > corporations in order to protect individuals. > >>our society has pushed cyclists to the extreme side of the roadway, >>or even off the roadway, and has since 1975 built bikeways to >>physically enforce those principles, while all the time saying that >>these measures are necessary because cyclists are incapable of >>operating as drivers of vehicles. > > I asserted that while some cyclists may be capable of operating as > drivers of vehicles, the majority of people who may ride a bicycle > cannot be trusted to ride one according to the laws that govern > motorists. Ignoring the issue of whether they could be taught the > skills or the knowledge, I asserted that most individuals who ride > bicycles do not want to obey any rules when they ride bicycles. They > want to play. Using the word society as you did, I would say that > "society thinks bike riding is play". > > I suggest that the best way for bicyclists who want to be treated as > drivers of vehicles to get what they want is to be sure that all > bicyclists who really do want to play are provided a separate > playground, so that cyclists who ride in the roadway can be assumed > to be operating according to vehicular traffic principles. This may > require that bicyclists who want to ride in the roadway give up > something, such as their freedom to operate without a proper bicycle > driving license, perhaps even one that must be affixed visibly to > their bicycle such as are required for motor vehicles. Other workable > differentiations may be possible, but I can't think of any at the moment. > > I am interested to read what comments John Forester and others have > to offer in response to these suggestions. > > -- Trevor > > _______________________________________________ > > You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as nnorth at cox.net > To unsubscribe or change mailing options, go to > http://www.bikesandiego.org/mailman/listinfo/sdcbc > List privacy information is located at > http://www.stickman-computing.org/aup > For help or to talk with someone other than the mail robot, send e-mail to > postmaster at stickman-computing.org From forester at johnforester.com Sat Jan 6 00:23:50 2007 From: forester at johnforester.com (John Forester) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:23:50 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scofflaws In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070105184741.026a1e68@cox.net> References: <20070105221819.13721.qmail@web52507.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105151104.02baa6f8@johnforester.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105164339.02729d88@cox.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105172226.02b8c008@johnforester.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105184741.026a1e68@cox.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070105200508.02b7b7a0@johnforester.com> Well, Trevor is interested to read our comments; lots of scope for such in his posting. Trevor has an interesting view of society as understood by sociology. He equates society only as the actions of individuals. I had written: "Attributing these instances to social ignorance, or to the desire that cycling be play, ignores the role of society in creating these attitudes." To which Trevor replied: "Society is not a thing as you have tried to describe it. Saying that a group has actions is just shortcut talk for declaring the predominant (the "norm") action of particular individuals of the group. When I assert that eating while driving is normal, I merely mean that it has become common to do so." Trevor's definition of society as only the actions of individuals would not get him a passing grade in Soc. 1. Sociology also studies the institutions and organizations which are also parts of society, and studies their formation, their actions, their interactions, their purposes, and several other aspects of these entities. Furthermore, Trevor doesn't know the various definitions of normal and normative; in addition to his definition of popular or common, there is the definition of what should be done. These two definitions are obviously in conflict. To consider a subject close to our minds, consider the action of building bikeways. According to Trevor's view, bikeways are built only by considering the actions of individuals: the draftsman, the surveyor, the scraper operator, the operator of the asphalt mix plant, the spreader operator, the roller driver, and all the others. Bikeways are the norm because all these people participate in building them. The sociologist considers, instead, the parts of society whose interrelated actions result in the production of bikeways. I suggest that some of these parts of society are: the organizations of motorists, the bikeway advocates, the legislative bodies, the engineering societies, the contractors organizations, and many more. I had written: "Our society has spent very large efforts for eighty years or more to getting people to understand that motorists should operate as drivers of vehicles." To which Trevor replied: "Yes, when people operate dangerous equipment it is in all of our best interests that we be encouraged to use them safely, in order to avoid killing each other. It is the proper role of government to protect each of our rights by regulating each of us in order to protect the others." By Trevor's logic, only motorists should be regulated because only motorists operate dangerous equipment, leaving all the other road users unregulated because they do not operate dangerous equipment. The trouble with Trevor's theory is quite obvious: the highway system can operate safely and efficiently only when all roadway users operate according to the same rules; it cannot operate safely and efficiently when one class of user must operate according to certain ruels while all other users can operate in any way they please. The system could be operated safely, though not efficiently, if only motorists had rules, but if that were the system, then the rule for motorists would be that they would have to operate in a way to avoid all collisions with all other possible random motions of other traffic. That is, motorists could operate only at a crawl. I had written: "our society has pushed cyclists to the extreme side of the roadway, or even off the roadway, and has since 1975 built bikeways to physically enforce those principles, while all the time saying that these measures are necessary because cyclists are incapable of operating as drivers of vehicles." According to Trevor's theory, societies cannot do these things because societal action is no more than the sum of individual actions. As I pointed out above, this is not an acceptable sociological theory of social action. We know that our society has done these things, and we have some understanding of the parts of the society that have caused these things to occur. With respect to the latter part of my sentence above, that society claims that cyclists are incapable of operating as drivers of vehicles, Trevor agrees: "I asserted that while some cyclists may be capable of operating as drivers of vehicles, the majority of people who may ride a bicycle cannot be trusted to ride one according to the laws that govern motorists." Note Trevor's sneaky argument, presented in the hope that you won't notice its flaws. The statement concerned society's claim that cyclists are incapable of operating as drivers of vehicles. While acknowledging that some cyclists can operate as drivers of vehicles, Trevor then changes the verb from being capable to being trusted. All that Trevor is saying here, in actual fact, is that most Americans think that they can get away with operating bicycles in an unlawful manner. Well, yes, Trevor, that is what I have written above, in slightly different words. American society prefers that cyclists operate in an unlawful manner, because it fears, erroneously, that if cyclists operated lawfully motorists would be delayed. Then Trevor wrote: "I asserted that most individuals who ride bicycles do not want to obey any rules when they ride bicycles. They want to play. Using the word society as you did, I would say that "society thinks bike riding is play"." That is a correct assertion. That societal belief is one justification that society has for discriminating against cyclists, because they are "only playing on the roadway" while motorists are "using the roadway." You have all read that before, haven't you? However, that belief, held both by society and by Trevor, is jeopardized by the recognition that if the roads are to be used safely and efficiently, all roadway users must operate by the same rules. In other words, any society which believes that riding a bicycle is only play must prohibit playing with bicycles on the roadway, because that is dangerous. Which is, of course, the argument made for kicking cyclists off the roadways. Then Trevor fulfills his theory by suggesting that people who want to play with bicycles be provided with bicycle playgrounds. Well, just as some recreational authorities have provided special facilities for skateboarding. I have no objection to that, provided that the money and space come from recreational funds. I think, though, that such would be very dangerous. It is well known that bike paths, which are operated as bicycle playgrounds, have a very high accident rate. In San Diego, also, it is also appropriate to refer to the Great 805 Disaster, which occurred when the just completed but not open to motor traffic freeway I-805 was opened for a day as a bicycle playground, and quickly closed because of the accidents. It is also reasonable to note that the most dangerous part of the Palo Alto to Marin County and return century ride is that portion that is through the Golden Gate Park which is closed to motor traffic and is therefore operating as a bicycle playground. Then Trevor introduces the subject of certifying cyclist competence: "... so that cyclists who ride in the roadway can be assumed to be operating according to vehicular traffic principles. This may require that bicyclists who want to ride in the roadway give up something, such as their freedom to operate without a proper bicycle driving license, perhaps even one that must be affixed visibly to their bicycle such as are required for motor vehicles." Trevor here conflates vehicle licensing with driver licensing, which are entirely different things. The only issue here is licensing of cyclists as drivers of vehicles, not licensing of bicycles as vehicles. I do not disapprove of such a possibility, but it is not necessary. Almost any police officer who sees a cyclist disobeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is capable of catching that cyclist; the officer patrolling on foot is almost unheard of today. Catch the cyclist and cite him for disobeying the law; there's nothing complicated in that. No license plate readable from a long distance is necessary to accomplish that. I point out that those European societies which assumed that cyclists had to obey the traffic laws never found the need for cyclist licensing. They prosecuted unlawful cyclists in just the same way that they prosecuted burglars. Trevor's suggestion is rather like licensing people for knowing that it is unlawful to burgle houses, so that, if caught burgling a house, they can be identified and prosecuted. John Forester, MS, PE Bicycle Transportation Engineer 7585 Church St. Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306 619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com From bikes.alot at cox.net Sat Jan 6 01:38:59 2007 From: bikes.alot at cox.net (Bicyclist) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 22:38:59 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scofflaws In-Reply-To: <000901c7313c$bf2d6310$6901a8c0@NealDesk> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070105172226.02b8c008@johnforester.com> <000901c7313c$bf2d6310$6901a8c0@NealDesk> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070105223717.03874498@cox.net> I believe that this study, cited below, has largely been debunked... but this is a list-server for bicycling concerns so... enough said? At 06:45 PM 1/5/2007, Neal Henderson wrote: >Hello All, > >Pedestrian Crosswalks >....... >http://www.azdot.gov/highways/Traffic/XWalk.asp > > >FOREWORD > >The Arizona Department of Transportation's crosswalk policy is based >on research conducted over a seven-year period by the City of San >Diego. The San Diego approach to evaluating crosswalk needs, which >resulted from that research, has resulted in that city being >consistently ranked as the safest pedestrian city in the nation. The >San Diego study showed traffic engineers that nearly six pedestrian >accidents were occurring in marked crosswalks for every one mishap >in unmarked crosswalks (those unpainted crosswalks that exist by >State law at all intersections). (emphasis added) When this ratio >was adjusted in terms of relative crosswalk usage, there was still >an impressive 2 to 1 difference in accidents. > >Cheers, > >Neal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070106/bf293dfa/attachment.html From trevorspoke at cox.net Sat Jan 6 03:06:50 2007 From: trevorspoke at cox.net (Trevor Bourget) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 00:06:50 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scofflaws In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070105200508.02b7b7a0@johnforester.com> References: <20070105221819.13721.qmail@web52507.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105151104.02baa6f8@johnforester.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105164339.02729d88@cox.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105172226.02b8c008@johnforester.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105184741.026a1e68@cox.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105200508.02b7b7a0@johnforester.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070105231946.026f5ba0@cox.net> Californians and, by extension, the rest of the bike riders in the USA have a lot to thank for John Forester's precise attention to use of words in our language and to his comprehensive attack on written material. Leaving much of what he wrote aside (because he's right, and because it's irrelevant to the discussion I am interested in pursuing), let's continue: At 09:23 PM 1/5/2007, John Forester wrote: >With respect to the latter part of my sentence above, that society >claims that cyclists are incapable of operating as drivers of >vehicles, Trevor agrees: "I asserted that while some cyclists may >be capable of operating as drivers of vehicles, the majority of >people who may ride a bicycle cannot be trusted to ride one >according to the laws that govern motorists." Note Trevor's sneaky >argument, presented in the hope that you won't notice its flaws. The >statement concerned society's claim that cyclists are incapable of >operating as drivers of vehicles. While acknowledging that some >cyclists can operate as drivers of vehicles, Trevor then changes the >verb from being capable to being trusted. All that Trevor is saying >here, in actual fact, is that most Americans think that they can get >away with operating bicycles in an unlawful manner. Well, yes, >Trevor, that is what I have written above, in slightly different >words. American society prefers that cyclists operate in an unlawful >manner, because it fears, erroneously, that if cyclists operated >lawfully motorists would be delayed. What I actually said was not that Americans think they can get away with breaking the rules while riding a bike, but that they don't want any such rules, and that if such rules exist they will consider them to be silly intrusions and will ignore them. They think "Riding a bike is supposed to be fun, and we won't let traffic laws ruin our fun while riding our bikes." I suggest that perhaps this battle is not worth fighting, and that by giving up on it bicyclists who want to ride lawfully as part of the traffic system can get on with their own issues. The flaw with the approach, as I pointed out, is that play cyclists must now really be kept off the roadways (or prosecuted whenever they trespass there, as John suggests) and lawful cyclists must therefore be easily be identifiable as such. This is why I suggested that traffic cyclists might actually want to have a visible vehicular license plate required, which of course would require an operating license (probably including a test of knowledge and skills related to traffic law, if not also to cycling). >That societal belief is one justification that society has for >discriminating against cyclists, because they are "only playing on >the roadway" while motorists are "using the roadway." You have all >read that before, haven't you? However, that belief, held both by >society and by Trevor, is jeopardized by the recognition that if the >roads are to be used safely and efficiently, all roadway users must >operate by the same rules. In other words, any society which >believes that riding a bicycle is only play must prohibit playing >with bicycles on the roadway, because that is dangerous. Which is, >of course, the argument made for kicking cyclists off the roadways. The same argument kicks pedestrians out of the roadways onto sidewalks, and probably rightfully so. People walking have even less clue that they might be required to follow some rules than any other mode of transport I've seen. Even people sitting in airplanes do better (many even pretend to stay belted and seated until the airplane comes to a full stop at the terminal). >I have no objection to that, provided that the money and space come >from recreational funds. I think, though, that such would be very dangerous. Although skate parks, ski slopes, and other kinds of play areas are dangerous, people seem ready to leave the risk issue to the discretion of the users of the play areas. The issue for traffic cyclists is that they should NEVER have to be required to use a play area to reach any destination. This will probably mean traffic cyclists will use even more freeway shoulders, since many bike paths currently serve as the only reasonable alternate. An equally difficult approach would be to outlaw play cyclists from using some of the existing bike paths, converting them to "bike roads" instead. By the way, society (specifically, Caltrans) later overcame its burn from the I-805 opening and I think the SR-56 bicycle+pedestrian freeway opening went quite well. Interestingly, many of the play cyclists voluntarily kept to the bike path on that day. >Almost any police officer who sees a cyclist disobeying the rules of >the road for drivers of vehicles is capable of catching that >cyclist; the officer patrolling on foot is almost unheard of today. >Catch the cyclist and cite him for disobeying the law; there's >nothing complicated in that. The motor officer is part of the problem, since they don't really think these silly rules should apply to people playing on bikes. Instead, they just think the cyclists should go play elsewhere. Even the general public would be outraged if they found that police were "wasting time" citing cyclists for "trivial infractions". As far as public support for enforcement currently goes, it's to have police harass groups of cyclists enough so they do get out of the way. Let's imagine all cyclists voluntarily agreeing to be held to traffic law also agree to wear only standard-issue orange safety vests so that police could immediately pull over anyone riding in the roadway who does not belong there and immediately choose to cite other infractions of traffic law by those who identifiably do have the right to be there. Leaving aside whether this is a necessary extreme, I am curious whether people think this would actually solve the problem. Would today's motorists really be willing to share the roadway with cyclists who they knew would be following the same laws as themselves? It seems to me that the "education and enforcement" approach currently argued may actually be striving at the same solution. Instead of putting the play cyclists on the sideways and byways, the idea is to get rid of the "fun" altogether, converting everyone to "serious" cyclists. I'm not convinced anymore that the approach will work. People actually like to ride bikes. Lawful cyclists I know still tend to think of their cycling as fun, but this takes a different mind set. Maybe figuring out how to get the fun back into law-abiding is the problem we should really be trying to solve. That would improve the lot of all highway users who consequently improve their compliance with traffic law. -- Trevor p.s. John alludes to some European cultures where cyclists are cited and prosecuted as rigorously as motor vehicle operators (whether it's for the same or a different set of rules, does not really matter). I'd be interested to know the name of these countries, in order to find out more about them. They could shed light on this ideal-world thought experiment. From JonIsaacs at aol.com Sat Jan 6 03:42:06 2007 From: JonIsaacs at aol.com (JonIsaacs at aol.com) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 03:42:06 EST Subject: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scofflaws Message-ID: In a message dated 1/5/07 7:47:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, nnorth at cox.net writes: > OK, one of my rare times to chime in. Watch drivers, cyclist (us), and > walkers. A percentage will run/walk thru red lights and stop signs, and use > > the road in a generally unsafe way. It isn't the majority of any group. > Just the noticable ones. ==== A couple of years ago I was waiting for a delivery at an intersection with a 4 way stop and did an informal survey of who stopped, who slowed and who ran the stop sign. These were subjective judgements... This was at the entrance to the UCSD campus. I waited about 45 minutes. Of the cyclists, about half rolled the sign, the other half never slowed up at all. A couple actually stopped. Of the motorists, there were none that ran the signs, about half came to a stop, the other half rolled the sign. ===== I rarely see a car run a light and yet I see cyclists run lights, cross an intersection against the red frequently. I see cyclists riding on the wrong side of the street on a regular basis. Last month I was riding SB on Genesee at night and heading up to Governor I realized there was someone on a bike with no lights headed down the hill in the bike lane at 30mph+ towards me... Jon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070106/e128e90f/attachment.html From rob_leone at earthlink.net Sat Jan 6 09:01:13 2007 From: rob_leone at earthlink.net (Robert Leone) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 06:01:13 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Go Trevor Go! Message-ID: <459FABA9.1070703@earthlink.net> Dear All: Trevor wrote, in part, QUOTE:Even people sitting in airplanes do better (many even pretend to stay belted and seated until the airplane comes to a full stop at the terminal).END OF QUOTE. After a bit of landing gear collapse as Now Defunct Airlines' DC-9 stretch made contact with the jetway, giving those prepping to deplane early (in a stretched DC-9, an exercise even more futile than in most jetliners) a nasty lurch into a range of hard and soft objects (including other passengers), I am one of those stay seated and belted types. Robert Leone From forester at johnforester.com Sat Jan 6 17:53:16 2007 From: forester at johnforester.com (John Forester) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:53:16 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Obeying the traffic laws In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070105231946.026f5ba0@cox.net> References: <20070105221819.13721.qmail@web52507.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105151104.02baa6f8@johnforester.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105164339.02729d88@cox.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105172226.02b8c008@johnforester.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105184741.026a1e68@cox.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105200508.02b7b7a0@johnforester.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105231946.026f5ba0@cox.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070106142448.02b83120@johnforester.com> Trevor Bourget posed a question with the following words: "p.s. John alludes to some European cultures where cyclists are cited and prosecuted as rigorously as motor vehicle operators (whether it's for the same or a different set of rules, does not really matter). I'd be interested to know the name of these countries, in order to find out more about them. They could shed light on this ideal-world thought experiment." I did not use the present tense in this statement. And I used that statement in the context of pointing out that a large-lettered bicycle license plate is not necessary in order to stop an unlawful cyclist and issue a citation, any more than people need to pass examinations about not stealing and to carry placards so that they can be identified if they are caught in the act of burglary. Be that as it may, I have often made this statement before this. It is perfectly possible for a society to require that cyclists obey the traffic laws and to enforce that requirement by prosecuting those who disobey. I grew up in such a society, as did my parents before me, and, for all I know, my grandparents also. Indeed, when I last cycled in England, for five weeks in 1985, the only cyclists whom I saw behaving foolishly and unlawfully were (I was so astonished that I interviewed them) participating in a trip organized by the Massachusetts Youth Hostels. Indeed, because of my interest in the sociological aspects of cycling, I took care to talk about cycling with the people whom I met in pubs along the road. They were universally astonished when I described to them the typical American opinion, just as expressed by Trevor here, that cyclists did not have to obey the traffic laws, or were supposed to obey different laws. They asked, "How is it possible for the roads to function when different people obey different rules?" I know several good cyclists who have cycled extensively in France, and they have never remarked about foolish and unlawful behavior by French cyclists, but rather have said how refreshing it was to cycle in a nation in which proper cycling was expected. In all the years that I read the British cycling press, I never read complaints about general cyclist misbehavior; I understood, as did the writers and the editors, that cyclists were expected to obey the traffic laws, generally did so, and that disobeying the traffic laws was not a significant problem. There were a few articles about obeying the more complex rules, and there were significant articles on the occasions when the government made changes to the Highway Code that appeared to be unfavorable for cyclists. In short, the assumption was that cyclists did obey the traffic law, were expected to do so, and in fact did so. I also understand that cyclists in the Netherlands are pretty law-abiding, although to a different set of rules. I also understand that cyclists in Germany have become somewhat disobedient, disobeying the bikeway rules when they see that it is better to obey the rules for drivers of vehicles. John Forester, MS, PE Bicycle Transportation Engineer 7585 Church St. Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306 619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com From forester at johnforester.com Sat Jan 6 20:49:16 2007 From: forester at johnforester.com (John Forester) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 17:49:16 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scofflaws In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070105231946.026f5ba0@cox.net> References: <20070105221819.13721.qmail@web52507.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105151104.02baa6f8@johnforester.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105164339.02729d88@cox.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105172226.02b8c008@johnforester.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105184741.026a1e68@cox.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105200508.02b7b7a0@johnforester.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070105231946.026f5ba0@cox.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070106145625.00f813b0@johnforester.com> When I wrote that "most Americans think that they can get away with operating bicycles in an unlawful manner", Trevor Bourget tried to correct this by repeating "[T]hey don't want any such rules, and that if such rules exist they will consider them to be silly intrusions and will ignore them." I fail to see any particular difference. And I fail to see any significance to whatever difference might exist; we agree that most Americans think it appropriate to operate bicycles without obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Trevor again introduced the subject of pedestrians, by writing that pedestrians are kicked off the roadways because they, too, should not play in the roadway. That is not the reason that pedestrians are required to use sidewalks where present. The reason is that because wheel vehicular traffic and pedestrian foot traffic are incompatible, each is provided with its own facility. This has nothing to do with playing; it is because they operate in physically different manners. Furthermore, Trevor then criticizes typical pedestrian behavior: "People walking have even less clue that they might be required to follow some rules than any other mode of transport I've seen." Well, there aren't many rules for pedestrians. There are the common law rules that you don't knock people down by being in a hurry, and similar. There is the traffic rule that you don't step into the roadway when approaching traffic is so close as to constitute a danger. There is the traffic rule that you use nearby marked crosswalks. There is the rule that you obey traffic signals. That's all, I think. When I wrote that any traffic officer is very likely to be able to catch a cyclist whom he sees disobeying the law (as part of my argument denigrating Trevor's large-lettered bicycle license plate argument), Trevor replied with: "The motor officer is part of the problem, since they don't really think these silly rules should apply to people playing on bikes. Instead, they just think the cyclists should go play elsewhere. Even the general public would be outraged if they found that police were "wasting time" citing cyclists for "trivial infractions"." Trevor didn't like my argument that our societal institutions, such as the police force, have been guided by societal pressures into believing that cyclists should not obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, yet here is Trevor making exactly that argument. You see, we don't disagree about much. Now Trevor gets down to a substantive suggestion, but which is just a modification of his earlier large-lettered license plate suggestion. "Let's imagine all cyclists voluntarily agreeing to be held to traffic law also agree to wear only standard-issue orange safety vests so that police could immediately pull over anyone riding in the roadway who does not belong there and immediately choose to cite other infractions of traffic law by those who identifiably do have the right to be there." This suggestion is contrary to all of our legal procedures. People are assumed to be obeying the law until there are reasonable grounds for believing otherwise. Police who stop and interrogate people simply on a whim, without reasonable cause, are both subject to legal challenge and are a sign of un-American tyranny. (Now, lets not get into a discussion of current politics about this.) It is as true for cyclist violations of traffic law as it is for persons caught breaking and entering, that any police officer who observes such behavior is entitled, indeed is expected, to stop the act and ensure that the supposed violator is brought to trial. So this part of Trevor's suggestion is both unnecessary and detrimental to justice. Trevor then brings up a societal influence that I had previously brought up, but which he, before this, denied the existence of. That is the matter of societal influence and acts by motorists. Here are his words: "Leaving aside whether this is a necessary extreme, I am curious whether people think this would actually solve the problem. Would today's motorists really be willing to share the roadway with cyclists who they knew would be following the same laws as themselves?" As I have written for thirty years, For sixty years or more the motoring organizations, through their control of the political process regarding traffic law, have pushed cyclists to the edge of the roadway and even off the roadway, and who, thirty-five years ago, set up the bikeway building organization to accomplish this aim in a more effective manner. I have long lost count of the many official meetings at which I have seen and heard motorists and representatives of motoring organizations arguing for their desire to get bicycles off the roadways; I know, at first hand, from personal observation of, and personal involvement in, the way in which the motoring organizations of California attempted to kick cyclists off the roadways onto bikeways. I was the leader in forestalling as much of that effort as we were able to forestall. The opposition of motorists and their organizations to cyclists' use of the roadways is a very serious problem, probably the most serious of the problems that hinder us. More about that below. I think that Trevor, in his concentration of the "fun" of lawless cycling, has missed another and more significant motive. That is the fear that most Americans have when considering riding a bicycle in a lawful manner. In all of the literature that I have read on this point, there is great concentration on fear, while Trevor's thought about "fun" is the first that I have read. By my analysis, and I have written this for thirty years, fear has been the motivator employed by the motoring organizations to keep cyclists at the edge of the roadway, or off the roadway, thereby preventing those cyclists from operating in the normal lawful manner. I repeat, again, that the motoring organizations used fear to produce a societal belief that: "The cyclist who rides in traffic will either delay the cars, which is Sin, or, if the cars don't choose to slow down, will be crushed, which is Death, and the Wages of Sin is Death." Then Trevor gets to the deeper part of his thought, with the following words: "It seems to me that the "education and enforcement" approach currently argued may actually be striving at the same solution. Instead of putting the play cyclists on the sideways and byways, the idea is to get rid of the "fun" altogether, converting everyone to "serious" cyclists. I'm not convinced anymore that the approach will work. People actually like to ride bikes. Lawful cyclists I know still tend to think of their cycling as fun, but this takes a different mind set. Maybe figuring out how to get the fun back into law-abiding is the problem we should really be trying to solve. That would improve the lot of all highway users who consequently improve their compliance with traffic law." Anyway, by this unnecessarily convoluted path, Trevor has come to consider the difficulty that most of us vehicular cyclists realize that we must overcome. That is, how do we, first, preserve our own activity of vehicular cycling and, second, get society to recognize that cyclists should operate in the vehicular manner. Trevor seems to doubt that such a society is possible; I considered that issue in my other essay of today; such societies have existed. It is a reasonable question, though, whether it is possible to change the present society, that discriminates against cyclists, to one that treats them equally. There is a small sign of favorable circumstances. That is, whenever I have questioned closely the representatives of the motoring organizations, they have said that they don't mind what they call "professional cyclists such as you"; those they oppose are those who don't obey the laws. That would be very well, except that they are the societal forces who have produced the unlawful and incompetent societal mindset for their own advantage. Whatever they might think about that, the problem has been enormously exacerbated by the bikeway excuse that other segments of society have given the motoring organizations. If bikeways had been recognized for what they always were, facilities invented and paid for by motorists to clear the way for motorists, the political problem would have been much easier to solve. However, that truth has been entirely covered up by the claim of the anti-motoring environmentalists that bikeways reduce motoring by making cycling so safe, easy, and pleasant that hordes of motorists will switch to cycling. One may try to argue that the problem is not associated with bikeways, but that is not correct. Whatever their original motivation, bikeways have given everybody except vehicular cyclists the socially acceptable excuse for discriminating against cyclists in the way that was first desired. So, what are vehicular cyclists to do? I say that the issue must be framed as vehicular cycling is good, while non-vehicular cycling, be it on the unadulterated roadway or on a roadway modified with bikeways, is bad. Bikeways are bad because they require, or strongly encourage, non-vehicular behavior, and they have failed to meet any of their claims: they haven't reduced the accident rate, they haven't reduced the level of skill required, and they haven't reduced motoring. Those facts ought to take the force out of the bikeway excuses. That ought to leave the way clear for a reasonable discussion of the need for the development of cyclist skill, just as would have occurred had the bikeway program not intervened. As Trevor has noticed, despite his argument about the fun of unlawful cycling, cycling lawfully and competently is an enjoyable activity. I think that vehicular cyclists, once the bikeway excuse has been cancelled, can manage to demonstrate the value and enjoyment of vehicular cycling for those who choose to enjoy cycling. John Forester, MS, PE Bicycle Transportation Engineer 7585 Church St. Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306 619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com From JimBaross at cox.net Sat Jan 6 23:20:53 2007 From: JimBaross at cox.net (Jim Baross) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 20:20:53 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] reason to ride right. Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070106201932.037be6b0@cox.net> http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/01/02/letters/438better.txt Bicyclists No Better Than Rest of Us By Charles Kratz Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2007 | Instead of lobbing softball questions to Kathy Keehan, how about some that matter? For instance: Many bicycle enthusiasts drive around in their cars with prominently displayed bumper stickers proclaiming, "Share the Road." Any driver knows, however, that bicyclists rarely, if ever, stop for STOP signs. They frequently drive right through red lights, with or without oncoming traffic. To add insult to injury, they often wave with their outstretched and somewhat lowered hand as if to proclaim, "Watch out! I'm coming through." Other times, bicyclists will be riding in traffic lanes, when there is a perfectly good bicycle lane or path constructed with taxpayer dollars. This seems to happen more often than not. What gives? Do only automobile drivers have to "share the road?" Are bicyclists immune from laws that restrict them from using facilities expressly for them? Do they think they are better than the rest of the public? http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/01/02/letters/440bikes.txt Bicyclists and Motorists By John Eldon, Encinitas Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2007 | Thank you very much for printing the interview with the San Diego Bicycle Coalition's Kathy Keehan. Kathy truly understands the various needs of recreational, transportation, and casual bicyclists and does a superb job in her capacity as executive director of SDCBC. Motorists, drive attentively and recognize that the safest and most appropriate place for a bicyclist is sometimes right in the center of "your" lane. Bicyclists, ride lawfully and in a courteously, defensively assertive and predictable manner. Traffic engineers, design intersections with the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists in mind. From JonIsaacs at aol.com Sun Jan 7 01:12:10 2007 From: JonIsaacs at aol.com (JonIsaacs at aol.com) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 01:12:10 EST Subject: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scofflaws Message-ID: In a message dated 1/6/07 12:09:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, trevorspoke at cox.net writes: > I'm not convinced anymore that the approach will > work. People actually like to ride bikes. Lawful cyclists I know > still tend to think of their cycling as fun, but this takes a > different mind set. Maybe figuring out how to get the fun back into > law-abiding is the problem we should really be trying to solve. That > would improve the lot of all highway users who consequently improve > their compliance with traffic law. > > Trevor: I have been casually following this thread and I have to say I don't see how running stop signs and stop lights, making illegal turns, riding without proper lights and generally ignoring traffic laws makes cycling "fun." From my point of view, when see some riding a bike is such a manner, I just figure they don't know any better. "Fun" in inharent in riding a bicycle, it really does not matter how you do it, it is fun. What does not seem to be inharent is riding in a manner that respects the rest of the traffic community including other people riding bicycles. The problem is not getting the fun into law-abiding cycling, the problem is educating people how to ride a bicycle in a safe and respectful manner because when they learn, they will also discover how fun it is.... Jon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070107/3d6fe2a6/attachment-0001.html From gcarman at san.rr.com Sun Jan 7 11:56:48 2007 From: gcarman at san.rr.com (Gene Carman) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 08:56:48 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] reason to ride right. In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070106201932.037be6b0@cox.net> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070106201932.037be6b0@cox.net> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20070107085349.0280fcf0@pop-server.san.rr.com> I think Charles needs to get out more... perhaps he has never heard of a "California stop" where motorists typically drive right through stop signs. I do agree that cyclists running red lights certainly does nothing for our image as law abiding road users... but in the case of stop signs, quite a few motorists fail to come to a complete stop... and are just as guilty as some cyclists. At 08:20 PM 1/6/2007, Jim Baross wrote: >http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/01/02/letters/438better.txt > >Bicyclists No Better Than Rest of Us >By Charles Kratz > >Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2007 | Instead of lobbing softball questions to >Kathy Keehan, how about some that matter? For instance: Many bicycle >enthusiasts drive around in their cars with prominently displayed >bumper stickers proclaiming, "Share the Road." Any driver knows, >however, that bicyclists rarely, if ever, stop for STOP signs. They >frequently drive right through red lights, with or without oncoming >traffic. To add insult to injury, they often wave with their >outstretched and somewhat lowered hand as if to proclaim, "Watch out! >I'm coming through." Other times, bicyclists will be riding in >traffic lanes, when there is a perfectly good bicycle lane or path >constructed with taxpayer dollars. This seems to happen more often >than not. What gives? > >Do only automobile drivers have to "share the road?" Are bicyclists >immune from laws that restrict them from using facilities expressly >for them? Do they think they are better than the rest of the public? > >http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/01/02/letters/440bikes.txt > >Bicyclists and Motorists >By John Eldon, Encinitas > >Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2007 | Thank you very much for printing the >interview with the San Diego Bicycle Coalition's Kathy Keehan. Kathy >truly understands the various needs of recreational, transportation, >and casual bicyclists and does a superb job in her capacity as >executive director of SDCBC. Motorists, drive attentively and >recognize that the safest and most appropriate place for a bicyclist >is sometimes right in the center of "your" lane. Bicyclists, ride >lawfully and in a courteously, defensively assertive and predictable >manner. Traffic engineers, design intersections with the needs of >pedestrians and bicyclists in mind. > > >_______________________________________________ > >You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as gcarman at san.rr.com >To unsubscribe or change mailing options, go to >http://www.bikesandiego.org/mailman/listinfo/sdcbc >List privacy information is located at http://www.stickman-computing.org/aup >For help or to talk with someone other than the mail robot, send >e-mail to postmaster at stickman-computing.org From JonIsaacs at aol.com Sun Jan 7 12:19:41 2007 From: JonIsaacs at aol.com (JonIsaacs at aol.com) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 12:19:41 EST Subject: [SDCBC] reason to ride right. Message-ID: In a message dated 1/7/07 9:05:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, gcarman at san.rr.com writes: > I do agree that cyclists running red lights certainly does nothing > for our image as law abiding road users... but in the case of stop > signs, quite a few motorists fail to come to a complete stop... and > are just as guilty as some cyclists. > ====== I see both cyclists and motorists "roll" stop signs. It is very rare that I see a motorist "run" a stop light or stop sign, never slowing at all. In contrast, I often see cyclists run both, never slowing in the least, whether going 15 mph or 25mph. I find it particularly annoying to stop at a 4 way stop, only to have a cyclist run the stop sign. Whether they are going the same direction I am or at right angles, it is a problem. I think it is a particular safety problem when someone blows (particularly on the right) past me while I am stopped or starting up... I normal catch up to them and let them know... When I am on my best behavior, my approach is: " Hello. You do realize you just ran that stop sign where I was stopped. Cyclists are required by law to stop at stop signs. If I had wobbled at bit as I took off, we could have both gone down. So if you are riding around me, please don't run stop signs." Sometimes this works and occasionally I even get an apology. Jon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070107/5b9df33c/attachment.html From execdir at sdcbc.org Tue Jan 9 13:51:28 2007 From: execdir at sdcbc.org (Kathy Keehan) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:51:28 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Bike donation drive Message-ID: <000001c7341f$2b7a14c0$6401a8c0@KathyDell> for those of you with bikes to donate - this sounds like a good cause! Kathy -----Original Message----- From: Sudi Shoja [mailto:sshoja at ci.vista.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 7:59 AM To: Tim Boelke; mamohrle at hotmail.com; mark_lagamayo at hotmail.com; martin2132 at mailbanamex.com; marty.teal at sbcglobal.net; matt.willmon at invitrogen.com; mattdorman at w-and-k.com; matthewsei at cdm.com; melaniesarah at gmail.com; melroz18 at aol.com; melyssa.sheeran at hdrinc.com; mfrisbie at semprautilities.com; michael at gruby.com; MKaludjerski at pbsj.com; mminick at vical.com; mpenner at parks.ca.gov; mschneider at dudek.com; mswor88 at yahoo.com; mvaldovinos at waterboards.ca.gov; nancy.dewees at navy.mil; NDYOH2001 at yahoo.com; Nicolas.Fontaine at hdrinc.com; pnolan at iecorporation.com; rebecca.gleason at HDRinc.com; RMLacarra at pbsj.com; Robert.schlesinger at sdsu.edu; rtanenbaum at sbcglobal.net; rtobe at pbsj.com; Sara.Agahi at sdcounty.ca.gov; sophia.mitchell at hdrinc.com; stickstacks at hotmail.com; stoddenSN at BV.com; taborcv at bv.com; Tom Adler; tconeal at pbsj.com; tfrench at trcsolutions.com; thomase at projectdesign.com; tmontgomery at rbf.com; tom.chadwick at hdrinc.com; torb at cox.net; tracy.addis at navy.mil; trose at trcsolutions.com; tshaw at hdrinc.com; tvaughan at san.rr.com; tvhennessey at gmail.com; weaverka at cdm.com; wpearce at sandiego.gov; zx2bond at aol.com Subject: RE: EWB-SD: Keep that New Year's Resolution! Hello Everyone; C.H.I.L.D, the organization that I belong to has arranged for a Bicycle Drive and will donate all the bicycles and helmets collected in San Diego County to Vista Sheriff Department for distribution to needy children attending the Junior Academy. To make it more convenient, we will collect the bicycles any day between now and Jan 21st at the City or you may take your bikes to the San Diego locations specified below. We also accept monetary contributions towards this program. All your donations are tax-deductible and receipts will be issued by CHILD office within 30 days. Please circulate this email to as many friends as possible. If you haven?t used your bike in the last year, chances are that you need a new one or you will never use it again, so give it away. We can begin by making a difference in our local community and reach out to the unimaginable places where much more than a bicycle is needed. We greatly appreciate your help in this cause. Many of you have been wonderful and contributed to our organization and I hope you make an effort this time as well. CHILD BOD wishes you the best for 2007 Sudi Shoja Assistant Director of Engineering/Public Works City of Vista Engineering Department (760) 726-1340 ext. 1322 sshoja at ci.vista.ca.us ----------------------------------- Kathy Keehan Executive Director San Diego County Bicycle Coalition P.O. Box 34544 San Diego, CA 92163 858.487.6063 execdir at sdcbc.org From execdir at sdcbc.org Tue Jan 9 18:00:03 2007 From: execdir at sdcbc.org (Kathy Keehan) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:00:03 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Volunteer night! Message-ID: <002c01c73441$e57dbd50$6401a8c0@KathyDell> I knew I was forgetting to do something... We're having volunteer night this Wednesday, January 10 (yes, that's tomorrow!) 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at Standley Recreation Center, 3585 Governor Drive. It's renewal letter time, so we'll be folding and stuffing. Come join for food, fun, and good bike stories! Questions? Call 858.487.6063 Hope to see you there. Kathy ----------------------------------- Kathy Keehan Executive Director San Diego County Bicycle Coalition P.O. Box 34544 San Diego, CA 92163 858.487.6063 execdir at sdcbc.org From rob_leone at earthlink.net Wed Jan 10 07:36:52 2007 From: rob_leone at earthlink.net (Robert Leone) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 04:36:52 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] What to say? Message-ID: <45A4DDE4.5030109@earthlink.net> Hiya: Scenario: While walking home along Garnet Ave at an hour past sunset, you come across a pod of about eight cyclists along the sidewalk, travelling against traffic. About six of the eight are wearing helmets, none appear fastened. Oh, yeah, no lights, full CPSC reflector complement. You have about ten seconds to make an impression: What do you say? I said something along the lines of "The brain buckets don't work so well when they're not fastened." Robert Leone From JonIsaacs at aol.com Wed Jan 10 13:53:47 2007 From: JonIsaacs at aol.com (JonIsaacs at aol.com) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:53:47 EST Subject: [SDCBC] What to say? Message-ID: In a message dated 1/10/2007 4:36:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, rob_leone at earthlink.net writes: > Hiya: > Scenario: While walking home along Garnet Ave at an hour past sunset, > you come across a pod of about eight cyclists along the sidewalk, > travelling against traffic. About six of the eight are wearing helmets, > none appear fastened. Oh, yeah, no lights, full CPSC reflector complement. > You have about ten seconds to make an impression: What do you say? > I said something along the lines of "The brain buckets don't work so > well when they're not fastened." > > Robert Leone ------ Rob: Were they in the street or on the sidewalk?? Seems like they must have been in the street. As someone who is rarely at a loss for words... I can think of nothing appropriate except maybe: "PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, GET A COPY OF EFFECTIVE CYCLING." jon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070110/c4ced1f3/attachment.html From rob_leone at earthlink.net Wed Jan 10 15:36:03 2007 From: rob_leone at earthlink.net (rob_leone at earthlink.net) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:36:03 -0800 (GMT-08:00) Subject: [SDCBC] What to say? Message-ID: <8894060.1168461363878.JavaMail.root@elwamui-ovcar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070110/0ba31efb/attachment.html From leprechaun81 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 10 22:43:11 2007 From: leprechaun81 at sbcglobal.net (Kevin and Lisa Seufert) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:43:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [SDCBC] What to say? In-Reply-To: <45A4DDE4.5030109@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <169426.91584.qm@web81715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> This is hard. Because you want to say that sidewalks aren't safe to pedal on but the argument is too hard to make in that short of time. "sidewalks are for walking, Bike lanes are for biking." Robert Leone wrote: Hiya: Scenario: While walking home along Garnet Ave at an hour past sunset, you come across a pod of about eight cyclists along the sidewalk, travelling against traffic. About six of the eight are wearing helmets, none appear fastened. Oh, yeah, no lights, full CPSC reflector complement. You have about ten seconds to make an impression: What do you say? I said something along the lines of "The brain buckets don't work so well when they're not fastened." Robert Leone _______________________________________________ You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as leprechaun81 at sbcglobal.net To unsubscribe or change mailing options, go to http://www.bikesandiego.org/mailman/listinfo/sdcbc List privacy information is located at http://www.stickman-computing.org/aup For help or to talk with someone other than the mail robot, send e-mail to postmaster at stickman-computing.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070110/9f26802f/attachment-0001.html From serge at issakov.org Wed Jan 10 22:49:39 2007 From: serge at issakov.org (Serge Issakov) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:49:39 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] What to say? In-Reply-To: <169426.91584.qm@web81715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <45A4DDE4.5030109@earthlink.net> <169426.91584.qm@web81715.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <69ec985b0701101949t510a994fvf01ac53d3e5c0c9a@mail.gmail.com> On 1/10/07, Kevin and Lisa Seufert wrote: "side*walks* are for *walking,* *Bike* lanes are for *biking."* > Sidewalks are for walking; roads are for riding. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070110/3a1be973/attachment.html From JimBaross at cox.net Wed Jan 10 21:22:19 2007 From: JimBaross at cox.net (Jim Baross) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:22:19 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] put brakes on antisocial cyclists... Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070110181736.0398ec38@cox.net> Remember our discussions about non-law abiding bicyclists - scofflaws some call 'em? It's time to put brakes on antisocial cyclists Here's a timely article and interesting point of view from a bicyclist advocate in England. For instance - "Occasionally cyclists are so stupid and selfish it makes you wonder if the wind has somehow whistled through their ears too quickly and sucked their brains out. Cycling without lights at night is not some environmentally courageous way of showing how you and the owls are as one; it's a way of being on a bicycle that says: "I don't care about anyone else other than myself. If some elderly person or small child crossing the road can't see me - hard cheese on them. I am on a bicycle and don't care." For the part of the world where this writer lives, pavement = sidewalk. http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=43862007 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070111/9b734000/attachment.html From forester at johnforester.com Thu Jan 11 15:54:26 2007 From: forester at johnforester.com (John Forester) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:54:26 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] reason to ride right. In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070106201932.037be6b0@cox.net> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070106201932.037be6b0@cox.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070107094808.02b78700@johnforester.com> The two letters that were posted, independently, to Voice of San Diego regarding cycling illustrate some pertinent points. Charles Katz expresses the classic militant motorist excuses for his opinion: We motorists paid good money for bikeways and for the laws that prohibit bicyclists from using the roadway when bikeways are available, and you scofflaw bicyclists refuse to obey the laws. Illustrated, of course, with cyclists running stop signs and traffic signals. John Eldon praises the SD Bicycle Coalition and asks motorists, cyclists, and traffic engineers to, in summary, behave nicely, without saying how or why. These two letters illustrate the intimate connection between militant motorists, cyclist-inferiority cycling, and bikeways, with also the implication of anti-motoring environmentalism in the background. We lawful and competent cyclists need to understand that the war is between vehicular cyclists and those who oppose vehicular cycling, whether because they oppose cycling or because they oppose motoring. When there is discussion of cycling issues, pussy-footing around the issues by asking for nice behavior simply confirms readers in their own superstitions. At every such opportunity, the lawful and competent cyclist should state explicitly that cyclists are required to obey, and are greatly benefited by obeying, the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, shortened, if it must be (though not as good), to obeying the traffic laws. Besides which, that benefits motorists also, who need worry less about unexpected unlawful behavior by unlawful, incompetent cyclists. At 08:20 PM 1/6/2007, Jim Baross wrote: >http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/01/02/letters/438better.txt > >Bicyclists No Better Than Rest of Us >By Charles Kratz > >Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2007 | Instead of lobbing softball questions to >Kathy Keehan, how about some that matter? For instance: Many bicycle >enthusiasts drive around in their cars with prominently displayed >bumper stickers proclaiming, "Share the Road." Any driver knows, >however, that bicyclists rarely, if ever, stop for STOP signs. They >frequently drive right through red lights, with or without oncoming >traffic. To add insult to injury, they often wave with their >outstretched and somewhat lowered hand as if to proclaim, "Watch out! >I'm coming through." Other times, bicyclists will be riding in >traffic lanes, when there is a perfectly good bicycle lane or path >constructed with taxpayer dollars. This seems to happen more often >than not. What gives? > >Do only automobile drivers have to "share the road?" Are bicyclists >immune from laws that restrict them from using facilities expressly >for them? Do they think they are better than the rest of the public? > >http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/01/02/letters/440bikes.txt > >Bicyclists and Motorists >By John Eldon, Encinitas > >Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2007 | Thank you very much for printing the >interview with the San Diego Bicycle Coalition's Kathy Keehan. Kathy >truly understands the various needs of recreational, transportation, >and casual bicyclists and does a superb job in her capacity as >executive director of SDCBC. Motorists, drive attentively and >recognize that the safest and most appropriate place for a bicyclist >is sometimes right in the center of "your" lane. Bicyclists, ride >lawfully and in a courteously, defensively assertive and predictable >manner. Traffic engineers, design intersections with the needs of >pedestrians and bicyclists in mind. > > >_______________________________________________ > >You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as forester at johnforester.com >To unsubscribe or change mailing options, go to >http://www.bikesandiego.org/mailman/listinfo/sdcbc >List privacy information is located at http://www.stickman-computing.org/aup >For help or to talk with someone other than the mail robot, send >e-mail to postmaster at stickman-computing.org John Forester, MS, PE Bicycle Transportation Engineer 7585 Church St. Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306 619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com From forester at johnforester.com Thu Jan 11 15:09:31 2007 From: forester at johnforester.com (John Forester) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:09:31 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] put brakes on antisocial cyclists... In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070110181736.0398ec38@cox.net> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070110181736.0398ec38@cox.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070111115426.02c6ae80@johnforester.com> I have written on this list that vehicular cycling was the norm in Britain; I deliberately used the past tense, because I have observed that the same anti-motoring bikeway rot had set in. After all, Andy Clarke, America's leading anti-motoring bikeway advocate, now the executive director of LAB, started his career with British Friends of the Earth (or some such organization), and I have had discussions, both email and in person, with leaders of that organization. The article in The Scotsman reflects the ambiguity that has developed. Note that the author explicitly says that cyclists must use the roadway, with the implication, which he felt not need to explicate, that the cyclist will be obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, but he also wishes for bike lanes on all roadways, without, apparently, understanding that bike lanes practically require deviating from those rules. At 06:22 PM 1/10/2007, Jim Baross wrote: >Remember our discussions about non-law abiding bicyclists - >scofflaws some call 'em? > >It's time to put brakes on antisocial cyclists > >Here's a timely article and interesting point of view from a >bicyclist advocate in England. For instance - >"Occasionally cyclists are so stupid and selfish it makes you wonder >if the wind has somehow whistled through their ears too quickly and >sucked their brains out. Cycling without lights at night is not some >environmentally courageous way of showing how you and the owls are >as one; it's a way of being on a bicycle that says: "I don't care >about anyone else other than myself. If some elderly person or small >child crossing the road can't see me - hard cheese on them. I am on >a bicycle and don't care." > >For the part of the world where this writer lives, pavement = sidewalk. > >http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=43862007 >_______________________________________________ > >You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as forester at johnforester.com >To unsubscribe or change mailing options, go to >http://www.bikesandiego.org/mailman/listinfo/sdcbc >List privacy information is located at http://www.stickman-computing.org/aup >For help or to talk with someone other than the mail robot, send >e-mail to postmaster at stickman-computing.org John Forester, MS, PE Bicycle Transportation Engineer 7585 Church St. Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306 619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070111/a7aa0313/attachment.html From execdir at sdcbc.org Thu Jan 11 18:27:13 2007 From: execdir at sdcbc.org (Kathy Keehan) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:27:13 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] FW: Kyle Bryant's Ride to Memphis Message-ID: <001c01c735d8$05d85460$6401a8c0@KathyDell> Information about a rider planning a cross country ride starting in San Diego as a fundraiser for beating FA. http://rideataxia.org/ , http://www.rideataxia.blogspot.com/ He's leaving from La Jolla (Scripps, 10596 Torrey Pines, 92037) on Monday the 22nd, between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m. or so, and would be happy to have a few riders with him for the first stretch of the trip... Kathy -----Original Message----- From: Bob James [mailto:bob_james at dot.ca.gov] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 3:03 PM To: Kathy Keehan Subject: Kyle Bryant's Ride to Memphis Hi Kathy; As I said this morning, attached are all the e-mails that have occurred between Kyle and me concerning his trip to Memphis. Info about FA, his disease, is also attached. Perhaps a few Coalition members can join Kyle on the morning of the 22nd and ride part of the way. thanks Bob James District 11 Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator Caltrans 2829 Juan Street MS-50 San Diego, CA. 92186-5406 Tel: (619) 688-4206 Fax: (619) 688-4299 ----- Forwarded by Bob James/D11/Caltrans/CAGov on 01/11/2007 02:59 PM ----- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RIDE ATAXIA TENTATIVE ITINERARY.doc Type: application/msword Size: 81920 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070111/cf82b723/attachment-0001.doc From tony at tonypietsch.com Thu Jan 11 22:35:21 2007 From: tony at tonypietsch.com (Tony Pietsch) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:35:21 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] FW: WHEN BICYCLE HELMETS MAKE NO SENSE Message-ID: <00ea01c735fa$b0e6f290$6501a8c0@tonyvaio> I'd add some comments to these pix, but I've got to go change my shorts. Subject: WHEN BICYCLE HELMETS MAKE NO SENSE This looks like a great place to never ride bicycles. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070111/5580de25/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 86411 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070111/5580de25/attachment-0004.jpe -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 57854 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070111/5580de25/attachment-0005.jpe -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 68827 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070111/5580de25/attachment-0006.jpe -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 70429 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070111/5580de25/attachment-0007.jpe From execdir at sdcbc.org Tue Jan 16 13:27:38 2007 From: execdir at sdcbc.org (Kathy Keehan) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:27:38 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] FW: bike tour Message-ID: <004401c7399c$00298170$6401a8c0@KathyDell> Any advice for these intrepid bicycle tourists? Kathy -----Original Message----- From: Ken Payton [mailto:kengp at lanset.com] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 7:27 PM To: execdir at sdcbc.org Subject: bike tour Hi, four of us, 3 from California, 1 from Georgia, are going to bike the Southern Tier, mapped by the American Cycling Assn., in March. If three of us arrive in a motorhome, where's the best place to store it while I'm gone? Is Campland, on the bay 3 1/2 miles from the start of the tour, a possibility? Are there bike clubs that might help me store the rv for 60-plus days? Any help would be appreciated. Cheers. Ken Payton "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover. . . ." Mark Twain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070116/38d974d0/attachment.html From j.eldon at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 16 17:27:39 2007 From: j.eldon at sbcglobal.net (John Eldon) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:27:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [SDCBC] RAAM 2007 Message-ID: <20070116222739.43331.qmail@web52510.mail.yahoo.com> FYI: RAAM 2007 will start on Sunday 10 June at Oceanside Pier, probably at 0900 again. I plan to be there again with my 1959 Capo, unless I have finished restoring my all-original 1960 (pictured) by then; perhaps I'll score another giveaway water bottle. :) Cheers, John E. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070116/104855d2/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: capo_a9_12.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 31890 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070116/104855d2/attachment-0001.jpg From execdir at sdcbc.org Wed Jan 17 19:36:43 2007 From: execdir at sdcbc.org (Kathy Keehan) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:36:43 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] FW: SLR River Trail Extension Meeting Message-ID: <004401c73a98$ba3cdf60$6401a8c0@KathyDell> For those of you who ride in Oceanside - this would be a good meeting to attend if you would like the San Luis Rey River bike path extended to the east! Kathy -----Original Message----- From: Nathan Mertz [mailto:NMertz at ci.oceanside.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 3:19 PM To: caroldcarr at sbcglobal.net; Howard LaGrange; doloreswells at hotmail.com; Pete Penseyres Cc: Kathy Keehan Subject: SLR River Trail Extension Meeting Importance: High Hi all, Just a reminder, we have a meeting tomorrow night with the Presidents Street Neighborhood to discuss the bike path extension project. The meeting starts at 7 pm and will be located at 4700 North River Road at the Libby Lake Community Center (NW corner of North River Rd and Calle Montecito). The meeting room is on the second floor, look for signs. This is our last scheduled meeting with the neighborhood, I hope to have good turn out. I personally hand delivered flyers and alignment plans to all residents that have backyards next to the path (as well as, mailed flyers to all neighborhood property owners). It would be nice to have some supporters of the project there. Thank you Nathan Mertz Parks Development Coordinator Public Works Department City of Oceanside 300 N. Coast Highway Oceanside, CA 92054 Bus. (760) 435-5619 Fax. (760) 435-5027 nmertz at ci.oceanside.ca.us From execdir at sdcbc.org Wed Jan 17 20:28:06 2007 From: execdir at sdcbc.org (Kathy Keehan) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:28:06 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Bike Coalition Board meeting next Wednesday, Jan 24th. Message-ID: <005d01c73a9f$e7a99450$6401a8c0@KathyDell> We're starting the new year off with a bang! Our next board meeting is Wednesday, January 24th, 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. at Standley Recreation Center, 3585 Governor Drive, San Diego. So far we've got the following topics for discussion - 1. Proposal to start a 'bike kitchen' in San Diego 2. Discussions with New Belgium Brewing re: Tour de Fat 3. Inclusion of San Diego Century Riders as member club of the Bicycle Coalition 4. Budget for 2007 5. Amendments and corrections to the by-laws 6. Update on ongoing projects, including "Pedal to the Park", and the Escondido Bike Plan You won't want to miss it! If you have other items that should be included on the agenda, please email Brian Parent (bparent at ucsd.edu) or me with the details. See you Wednesday! Kathy ----------------------------------- Kathy Keehan Executive Director San Diego County Bicycle Coalition P.O. Box 34544 San Diego, CA 92163 858.487.6063 execdir at sdcbc.org From jbochsler at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 15:38:53 2007 From: jbochsler at yahoo.com (Jack Bochsler) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:38:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [SDCBC] Pomerado Rd @ I15 bridge open 20Jan In-Reply-To: <005d01c73a9f$e7a99450$6401a8c0@KathyDell> Message-ID: <977276.98488.qm@web50312.mail.yahoo.com> The paper announced that Pomerado/West Bernardo Drive bridge over I15 (just S of Lake Hodges) will be open Saturday, 20Jan. It has been closed for almost a year, with a fairly long and hilly alternate route. Yeah! jack ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com From JimBaross at cox.net Fri Jan 19 13:48:28 2007 From: JimBaross at cox.net (Jim Baross) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:48:28 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Fwd: [CABO] Davis, CA Bike/Ped Coordinator Job Opening Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070119104821.0339f6c8@cox.net> >To: caboforum at topica.com >From: dltakemotoweerts at ucdavis.edu >Subject: [CABO] Davis, CA Bike/Ped Coordinator Job Opening >Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:26:27 +0000 >Reply-To: dltakemotoweerts at ucdavis.edu >X-Topica-Id: <1169223987.web002.5828.1000000> >List-Help: >List-Unsubscribe: > > >Job opportunity in Davis, CA, "City of Bicycles". Final filing date, >2/23/07: > >http://www.city.davis.ca.us/jobs/listings/Bike_Ped_Coord_feb-23-2007.pdf > > > >David Takemoto-Weerts >Bicycle Program Coordinator >Transportation & Parking Services >One Shields Avenue >University of California >Davis, CA 95616 >Ph. 530/752-BIKE (2453) >Fax 530/754-9948 > > >--^---------------------------------------------------------------- >This email was sent to: jimbaross at cox.net > >EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aVxiBu.a2kRoe.amltYmFy >Or send an email to: caboforum-unsubscribe at topica.com > >For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: >http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER >--^---------------------------------------------------------------- From mberry2 at cox.net Sun Jan 21 14:45:29 2007 From: mberry2 at cox.net (Mike Berry) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 11:45:29 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Contact for State Routes Message-ID: <001301c73d94$b4897570$6801a8c0@DC7JW2C1> Does anyone know the proper point of contact for road conditions that affect cyclists on state highways? My particular beef is the repaving job on westbound SR76 between I-15 and North River Road in the Fallbrook area. Unfortunately I don't have pictures, but imagine if you will a road with 3 foot shoulders on either side. The repaving only extends to part of the shoulder, so that down the middle of the shoulder, you have uneven pavement, with a difference of at least one to two inches. Of course if this dividing line of uneven payment ran directly down the center of the shoulder it would be fairly easy to negotiate. However, the edge of the new paving is not a straight line and it may at times leave little pavement to the right of the newly paved road for the cyclist to ride. Most places I would simply merge into traffic off the shoulder using effective cycling techniques. However, SR76 is not my favorite place to do this. The road is a narrow two lane high speed corridor that is hardly safe for effective motoring let alone effective cycling. The Century Riders sponsored a 200K Brevet event yesterday and we had close to one hundred riders from all over the state participating. The only beef was this section of road (well that and the climb up Couser Canyon). I'm not sure if this problem extends further west then North River Road, as we routed riders to North River Rd and onto the San Luis Rey Bikeway. Thank You!! Mike Berry www.sandiegocenturyriders.com Home of the San Diego Brevet Series Dedicated to the Adventure and Camaraderie of Long Distance Cycling -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070121/280d6837/attachment.html From execdir at sdcbc.org Sun Jan 21 19:37:56 2007 From: execdir at sdcbc.org (Kathy Keehan) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 16:37:56 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Ride and Learn Schedule for the coming year Message-ID: <000501c73dbd$8f397850$6401a8c0@KathyDell> We had a very nice ride this morning in downtown San Diego - 12 of us rode the ride and saw the sights. I've put the Ride and Learn on the calendar for the second Sunday of each month, so our next outing will be on February 11th. We'll be doing a new ride from Mission Bay up into La Jolla and back, with a stop at the La Jolla farmer's market at La Jolla Elementary school. Meet at 9:15 a.m. at the Mission Bay Visitor's Center NORTH parking lot, ride departs at 9:30. Don't miss it! And you can put the following dates on your calendar for our next Ride and Learn's - March 11, April 8, May 13, June 10, July 8, August 12, September 9,October 14, November 11, and December 9th. Locations to be determined, but will include Coronado, Downtown San Diego, and Mission Bay, along with others. Kathy ----------------------------------- Kathy Keehan Executive Director San Diego County Bicycle Coalition P.O. Box 34544 San Diego, CA 92163 858.487.6063 execdir at sdcbc.org From execdir at sdcbc.org Sun Jan 21 19:49:15 2007 From: execdir at sdcbc.org (Kathy Keehan) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 16:49:15 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] West Bernardo Drive bridge open! Message-ID: <000a01c73dbf$24252350$6401a8c0@KathyDell> The new bridge over I-15 at West Bernardo Drive is now open to auto and bike traffic. They've built it with a pedestrian walkway on the north side of the bridge (which you can use if you want to on a bike) and tight 4-foot shoulders. There is now also a three-way stop at the west end (that used to be two way stop and free flowing traffic onto the freeway.) The sign on the freeway onramp said 'no bikes, no peds...' on Saturday, but they're supposed to be fixing that. Bikes are still allowed on the I-15 shoulder over Lake Hodges. Kathy ----------------------------------- Kathy Keehan Executive Director San Diego County Bicycle Coalition P.O. Box 34544 San Diego, CA 92163 858.487.6063 execdir at sdcbc.org From kking002 at san.rr.com Wed Jan 24 01:16:27 2007 From: kking002 at san.rr.com (Kenneth King) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:16:27 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Adventure Cycling Map? In-Reply-To: <20061230062713.GA29075@bart.simpson.private> Message-ID: <000201c73f7f$2e749fe0$c901a8c0@Ken> Does anyone have a copy of Adventure Cycling's Lewis and Clark route from Missoula, MT, to Clarkston, WA (242.5 mi.)? I ordered one several months ago, but they are out of print. The new one won't be available until April, and I want to plan a trip there! I can buy it or borrow it. Thanks for looking at your map files! Ken King From jbochsler at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 03:16:36 2007 From: jbochsler at yahoo.com (Jack Bochsler) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 00:16:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [SDCBC] Adventure Cycling Map? In-Reply-To: <000201c73f7f$2e749fe0$c901a8c0@Ken> Message-ID: <358895.21624.qm@web50309.mail.yahoo.com> Ken: I cycled this route many years ago, I believe that there is really only one route. Lolo Pass, Hwy12 and Hwy 7. I rode it in two days, spent the night in Kooskia camped along the river. It was absolutely some of the most beautiful days of my trip that summer. Traffic was light along the 12, but there was forest fires along the pass so that may have made the traffic lighter than anticipated. IIRC there is a stretch of 72 miles without services *of any kind*. But if you are traveling westbound it is the easiest 72 miles you will ever do as you are coming off the continental divide. I will check my maps when I return, I am OOC for the next two weeks. Regards, jack --- Kenneth King wrote: > Does anyone have a copy of Adventure Cycling's Lewis and Clark route > from > Missoula, MT, to Clarkston, WA > (242.5 mi.)? I ordered one several months ago, but they are out of > print. > The new one won't be available until April, and I want to plan a trip > there! > > I can buy it or borrow it. Thanks for looking at your map files! > > Ken King > > > _______________________________________________ > > You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as jbochsler at yahoo.com > To unsubscribe or change mailing options, go to > http://www.bikesandiego.org/mailman/listinfo/sdcbc > List privacy information is located at > http://www.stickman-computing.org/aup > For help or to talk with someone other than the mail robot, send > e-mail to postmaster at stickman-computing.org > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL From execdir at sdcbc.org Wed Jan 24 15:35:58 2007 From: execdir at sdcbc.org (Kathy Keehan) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:35:58 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Torrey Pines Trails plan Message-ID: <003201c73ff7$4165a180$6401a8c0@KathyDell> The plan calls for potentially restricting bike traffic to uphill only on the park road up the hill... Kathy To: Stakeholders, User Groups, Trails Organizations, Public Entities RE: Public Meeting Announcement ? Draft Trails Management Plan for Torrey Pines State Reserve Dear Trails Enthusiast, California State Parks invites you to attend the upcoming Public Meeting for the Torrey Pines State Reserve ? Draft Trails Management Plan. The purpose of the meeting will be to introduce the Plan, answer your questions, and hear your comments regarding the recommendations of the Plan. February 6, 2007 6:00 PM ? 8:00 PM Lodge at Torrey Pines (at golf course) 11480 North Torrey Pines Road La Jolla, Ca 92037 Braun Room The Draft Trails Management Plan establishes goals for the overall trail system as well as guidelines for appropriate trail uses, trail closures and reroutes, trail maintenance and repair activities, trail aesthetics, and a trail monitoring system. The Plan defines trail-specific guidelines for individual trails as well as recommended future planning efforts that are beyond the scope of the Plan. The Draft Trails Management Plan can be viewed on-line at http://www.torreypines.org Comments and questions regarding the public meeting or Plan can be directed to: Bob Patterson Project Manager California State Parks San Diego Coast District 4477 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92110 bpatters at parks.ca.gov Thank you for your participation, Bob Patterson, RLA #3555 Associate Landscape Architect San Diego Coast District 4477 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92110 P (619) 220-5321 F (619) 688-3229 bpatters at parks.ca.gov ----------------------------------- Kathy Keehan Executive Director San Diego County Bicycle Coalition P.O. Box 34544 San Diego, CA 92163 858.487.6063 execdir at sdcbc.org From gcarman at san.rr.com Wed Jan 24 18:29:24 2007 From: gcarman at san.rr.com (Gene Carman) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:29:24 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Torrey Pines Trails plan In-Reply-To: <003201c73ff7$4165a180$6401a8c0@KathyDell> References: <003201c73ff7$4165a180$6401a8c0@KathyDell> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20070124152814.032d5580@pop-server.san.rr.com> But this plan is not aimed at bikes only... one of their ideas is to make the narrow road one way... which would effect all vehicle users in the same manner. The restrictions would not be aimed at bikes only. At 12:35 PM 1/24/2007, Kathy Keehan wrote: >The plan calls for potentially restricting bike traffic to uphill only on >the park road up the hill... >Kathy > >To: Stakeholders, User Groups, Trails Organizations, Public Entities > > >RE: Public Meeting Announcement ? Draft Trails Management Plan for Torrey >Pines State Reserve > > >Dear Trails Enthusiast, > > >California State Parks invites you to attend the upcoming Public Meeting for >the Torrey Pines State Reserve ? Draft Trails Management Plan. The purpose >of the meeting will be to introduce the Plan, answer your questions, and >hear your comments regarding the recommendations of the Plan. > > > >February 6, 2007 > >6:00 PM ? 8:00 PM > >Lodge at Torrey Pines (at golf course) > >11480 North Torrey Pines Road > >La Jolla, Ca 92037 > >Braun Room > > > >The Draft Trails Management Plan establishes goals for the overall trail >system as well as guidelines for appropriate trail uses, trail closures and >reroutes, trail maintenance and repair activities, trail aesthetics, and a >trail monitoring system. The Plan defines trail-specific guidelines for >individual trails as well as recommended future planning efforts that are >beyond the scope of the Plan. > > > >The Draft Trails Management Plan can be viewed on-line at >http://www.torreypines.org > > > >Comments and questions regarding the public meeting or Plan can be directed >to: > > > >Bob Patterson > >Project Manager > >California State Parks > >San Diego Coast District > >4477 Pacific Highway > >San Diego, CA 92110 > >bpatters at parks.ca.gov > > > > > >Thank you for your participation, > > > > > >Bob Patterson, RLA #3555 > >Associate Landscape Architect > >San Diego Coast District > > 4477 Pacific Highway > > San Diego, CA 92110 > > P (619) 220-5321 > > F (619) 688-3229 > > bpatters at parks.ca.gov > > > >----------------------------------- >Kathy Keehan >Executive Director >San Diego County Bicycle Coalition >P.O. Box 34544 >San Diego, CA 92163 >858.487.6063 >execdir at sdcbc.org > >_______________________________________________ > >You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as gcarman at san.rr.com >To unsubscribe or change mailing options, go to >http://www.bikesandiego.org/mailman/listinfo/sdcbc >List privacy information is located at http://www.stickman-computing.org/aup >For help or to talk with someone other than the >mail robot, send e-mail to postmaster at stickman-computing.org From execdir at sdcbc.org Wed Jan 24 19:06:55 2007 From: execdir at sdcbc.org (Kathy Keehan) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:06:55 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Torrey Pines Trails plan In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20070124152814.032d5580@pop-server.san.rr.com> Message-ID: <005701c74014$b990d9f0$6401a8c0@KathyDell> Hi Gene, The plan is not aimed only at bikes, but bikes are the only ones called out to be allowed access only in one direction, at least in Guideline 10.2.1 (page 30 of the adobe file). The wording isn't particularly clear as to whether or not this means that bicyclists would be able to use the other side of the reserve road going downhill, or if bikes would be required to use Torrey Pines Road/Coast Highway for the downhill trip. I'm thinking this would be an interesting conversation at the public meeting... 10.2.1 Develop and implement a transportation/trail plan for the Reserve road. The overall goal should be to provide a viable alternative transportation system to and from the visitor center while offering safer access for people on foot or bike. Consider the option of closing the Reserve road to public vehicles (except emergency and CSP vehicles) and establishing a transport system for Reserve visitors and volunteers. In addition, consider the designation of one lane of the Reserve road to an official trail for hikers, joggers, and bicyclists and limiting bicycle access to one direction (uphill). Kathy -----Original Message----- From: Gene Carman [mailto:gcarman at san.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:29 PM To: Kathy Keehan; Sdcbc Subject: Re: [SDCBC] Torrey Pines Trails plan But this plan is not aimed at bikes only... one of their ideas is to make the narrow road one way... which would effect all vehicle users in the same manner. The restrictions would not be aimed at bikes only. At 12:35 PM 1/24/2007, Kathy Keehan wrote: >The plan calls for potentially restricting bike traffic to uphill only on >the park road up the hill... >Kathy > >To: Stakeholders, User Groups, Trails Organizations, Public Entities > > >RE: Public Meeting Announcement ? Draft Trails Management Plan for Torrey >Pines State Reserve > > >Dear Trails Enthusiast, > > >California State Parks invites you to attend the upcoming Public Meeting for >the Torrey Pines State Reserve ? Draft Trails Management Plan. The purpose >of the meeting will be to introduce the Plan, answer your questions, and >hear your comments regarding the recommendations of the Plan. > > > >February 6, 2007 > >6:00 PM ? 8:00 PM > >Lodge at Torrey Pines (at golf course) > >11480 North Torrey Pines Road > >La Jolla, Ca 92037 > >Braun Room > > > >The Draft Trails Management Plan establishes goals for the overall trail >system as well as guidelines for appropriate trail uses, trail closures and >reroutes, trail maintenance and repair activities, trail aesthetics, and a >trail monitoring system. The Plan defines trail-specific guidelines for >individual trails as well as recommended future planning efforts that are >beyond the scope of the Plan. > > > >The Draft Trails Management Plan can be viewed on-line at >http://www.torreypines.org > > > >Comments and questions regarding the public meeting or Plan can be directed >to: > > > >Bob Patterson > >Project Manager > >California State Parks > >San Diego Coast District > >4477 Pacific Highway > >San Diego, CA 92110 > >bpatters at parks.ca.gov > > > > > >Thank you for your participation, > > > > > >Bob Patterson, RLA #3555 > >Associate Landscape Architect > >San Diego Coast District > > 4477 Pacific Highway > > San Diego, CA 92110 > > P (619) 220-5321 > > F (619) 688-3229 > > bpatters at parks.ca.gov > > > >----------------------------------- >Kathy Keehan >Executive Director >San Diego County Bicycle Coalition >P.O. Box 34544 >San Diego, CA 92163 >858.487.6063 >execdir at sdcbc.org > >_______________________________________________ > >You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as gcarman at san.rr.com >To unsubscribe or change mailing options, go to >http://www.bikesandiego.org/mailman/listinfo/sdcbc >List privacy information is located at http://www.stickman-computing.org/aup >For help or to talk with someone other than the >mail robot, send e-mail to postmaster at stickman-computing.org From serge at issakov.org Wed Jan 24 20:05:47 2007 From: serge at issakov.org (Serge Issakov) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:05:47 -0800 Subject: [SDCBC] Torrey Pines Trails plan In-Reply-To: <005701c74014$b990d9f0$6401a8c0@KathyDell> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20070124152814