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

[Jim Krause]

I have been reading all of your discussion with great interest.

A year ago I met a woman who was almost killed at that intersection with
the exit for highway 5.  She was riding on the rear of a tandem with her
husband.  I always think about this, and as a result always use the bike
path.  Jim K.

-----Original Message-----
From: sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org
[mailto:sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org] On Behalf Of Serge Issakov
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 10:12 AM
To: John Eldon
Cc: sdcbc at bikesandiego.org
Subject: Re: [SDCBC] "Actuarial inevitability" my #(#$&@ !

One lane, two lanes, what's the difference?  Lather, rinse, repeat
(did you hear about the software engineer who died from exhaustion
taking a shower?  He was following the directions on the shampoo
bottle...).

Seriously, there are three lanes: #1, #2 and #3.  You're in #1, and #2
and #3 come in from the right off the freeway.  After someone (say a
Prius) in #2 yields to you, you move from #1 to #2 and start signaling
right and alternating between looking ahead and looking back until
someone in lane #3 yields to you.  If  #3 is unoccupied, you go for
it, unless someone (in say a pickup) is flying along from behind in
#2, in which case I'd probably wait until the pickup slowed down, or
moved into #3 and passed me and the Prius on the right.

It's an unusual situation, but the same principles apply here as they
do everywhere else.  In particular: don't move laterally without first
verifying that it is clear and safe to do so.

Serge

On 7/20/07, John Eldon <j.eldon at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
_______________________________________________

You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as Jim at kkbs-law.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