[SDCBC] "Actuarial inevitability" my #(#$&@ !

[John Eldon]

The problem, Serge, is that two lanes come flying in from the right. Even if you are lucky enough to find a motorist who will actually slow for you (instead of speeding up to protect "their" lane from your invasion), you have no protection against another motorist suddenly changing lanes to pass the slowing car. This intersection and every other one like it violates the fundamental principle of slower traffic to the right and faster traffic to the left.

As usual, the problem is much worse for pedestrians and mobility scooter operators, who actually do have a right to safe and efficient accommodation on our public roadways. Intersections such as the one in question reinforce the public perception that walking and bicycling are inherently dangerous and that "streets are for cars." My answer is radical surgery in the form of traffic controls, traffic calming, bypasses, whatever it takes. 

All the best,

John

----- Original Message ----
From: Serge Issakov <serge at issakov.org>
To: John Eldon <j.eldon at sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:32:19 PM
Subject: Re: [SDCBC] "Actuarial inevitability" my #(#$&@ !

This works for me:

Stay in the left lane, right biased.  Look back and CLEARLY signal
right.  Keep signalling and alternating between looking ahead and
looking back until someone slows down to my speed to let me in
(causing everything behind them to slow down), THEN move right across,
and they pass.

What's the problem?

Serge


On 7/19/07, John Eldon <j.eldon at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> That freely-flowing two-lane offramp dumping 65mph I-5 traffic to the right
> of northbound cyclists on Mission Bay Drive is a classic example of why
> CalTrans should not be permitted to design the interface between freeway
> access ramps and the remainder of the road grid. 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070720/7d6d5271/attachment-0001.html