Look both ways

It's been a bad week for non-motorized transportation. On Monday, one pedestrian was killed on 15-501 south of town and another was injured* on West Franklin Street. And then yesterday a bus carrying the Boston College men's basketball team hit and killed a pedestrian on highway 54 near Meadowmont.

* Police say the pedestrian was at fault in this case.

Tags: 

Comments

Both towns should actively solicit citizen input and find out where the many, many dangerous crossings around town are.

It seems to me the school buses should have to serve neighborhoods that don't have safe pedestrian access no matter how close those neighborhoods are to the school.

Will Terri's neck of the woods ever be annexed? It seems like a no brainer-- requirements for annexation met or not--that those guys should be paying taxes... and Terri, you could run for alderman...

Since Carrboro High was sold as an "alternative transport" HS (hence the reduced number of parking spaces)and since it really WON'T be safe for the kids in the Dogwood Acres or Heritage Hills to walk or bike--I have a modest proposal to make. The kids in the HH and DA "walk zone" get first crack at the limited parking spaces. The kids in SV can walk, bike, or take the city bus.

Think it'll fly?

melanie

Can't Orange County pay some fees towards bus service for Dogwood Acres and Heritage Hills area? And are they any future plans to annex those areas into either Chapel Hill or Carrboro?

Mark,

I was referring to the school buses although I appreciate your efforts to keep us aware of our non-citizen status. My point was that the planning process between the school system and the town overlooked a large population of children (despite efforts to bring this topic into the discussion). I am not ascribing intentionality--just pointing out a fact. Whether they are citizens or not, our children need to be safe going to and from school. I assume that as an elected official who advocated keeping parking spaces to a minimum on the site that you would like to see them use alternative forms of transportation. Unfortunately, no alternatives are available as described earlier.

Mary--perhaps when you are appointed to the planning board you can help integrate planning for new developments and transportation.

FWIW, a little history. Carrboro threatened to annex Heritage Hills back in the 1970s. It just just as contentious then as your recent experience. The residents down here also asked Chapel Hill to annex them (turned down) and then they went one step further and investigated incorporation on their own. Apathy won out.

On another note--

Thoughts and prayers of healing and strength for the whole Hoffman/Kelley family...and to the driver of the vehicle.

The most complete article I've seen to date can be found in this morning's N&O--I'll attempt to link it!

http://www.newsobserver.com/712/story/409834.html

melanie

Yes, a speedy recovery to all. Ask for help if you need it! (What an unfortunate and bizarre accident.)

It seems to me the school buses should have to serve neighborhoods that don't have safe pedestrian access no matter how close those neighborhoods are to the school.

It is my understanding from Steve Scroggs' comments during BOCC discussion of the Twin Creeks site planning that the school district does provide transportation if students are faced with unsafe pedestrian conditions, even when students is within the raw state-defined walking distance.

In the Twin Creeks case, the school disctrict will have to provide transportation to hundreds of students because the walk through the woods is too dangerous to qualify and the other routes make the door to door distance exceed the allowed walkable distance. The planners were drawing an "as the crow flies" distance on the map (looked like a target on the map) because they did not ask or involve the school district to learn that the state & district use the actual walking distance of qualifying routes to determine the walk zones.

Hello. I am legally blind & live in downtown Carrboro, which is a wonderful thing if you don't drive. It affords a great deal of independence. When I moved here almost 2 years ago, I was shocked to discover how few audio cross signals there are in this supposedly progressive community. For a person who is visually impaired, the visual cross signals are useless, which makes it quite scarey & dangerous to cross a street. I would like for the community to be aware of this issue & I would like to see some of these signals installed. If anyone has any suggestions of how this issue can be pursued, I'd be grateful.

Terri, the reminder is only about how the bus system is paid for.

In any case, this exact same issue was relevant in the discussion of bus service for Rogers Road. As for the walkability of Smith Level Road and Carrboro High School, I assume you are aware that these matters are not really under our control - NCDOT is resisting mightily our efforts to get sidewalks and bikelanes on the section of Smith Level Road that is within Carrboro's town limits. I assume that they would have the same issues regarding Smith level south of Rock Haven (ie they will only support sidewalks as a part of making the road four lane - which I cannot accept).

It would be interesting to look at how this situation came about "despite efforts to bring this topic into the discussion" as you put it. It would be disturbing to think that important issues are getting raised by citizens, but are being ignored.

Personally, I don't know what issues were raised at that meeting when the High School was considered and approved by the BOA because I was absent that day. I wonder whether the method and timing of raising this issue was a factor.

We just heard this past week that the Transportation Advisory Board feels very strongly that the BOA should have required a roundabout at Rock Haven and Smith Level. This issue, like yours, is difficult to deal with after the CUP approval has already been granted.

What do you think would be a solution to the problem that you have identified?

Debbie, thanks for raising that issue. The Carrboro Board of Aldermen is having a budget public hearing this evening (Tuesday Feb 21 at 7:30 pm at Carrboro Town Hall). I have heard from someone else about this matter in the last few months. I will bring it up at the public hearing tonight unless someone comes to the hearing to tell us about it.

Mark Chilton,

When you say concerning NCDOT that "they will only support sidewalks as a part of making the road four lane - which I cannot accept" I assume that you mean that NCDOT will not pay for bike lanes and sidewalks on a two-lane state road because they assume that someday they will be four-laning it. Is that correct? Would they be willing to allow bike lanes & sidewalks if someone else was paying for it?

My recollection from the Weaver Dairy Road widening in CH was that they finally agreed to the bike lanes/sidewalks on a three-lane road but they told the town not to come back looking for any further improvements at a later time. Have there been any discussions along these lines regarding Smith Level Road in Carrboro?

George, you are right about why they are reluctant to have sidewalks go in. I don't know for sure whether DOT might be okay with sidewalks if paid for by someone else, but they have made the point before that curb and gutter is expensive to remove. That is, one concern they have appears to be that if we put in curb and gutter at a width that accomodates 2 or 3 lanes, then it would be costly to remove it if the road ever needs to be widened (and they firmly believe that it will need to be widened fairly soon). And people knowledgable about such things tell me that it is difficult to build sidewalks without having curb and gutter on the adjacent street.

One more clarifying point - you said DOT "finally agreed to the bike lanes/sidewalks on a three-lane road but they told the town not to come back looking for any further improvements at a later time"

Part of what I was getting at above was exactly that issue: DOT believes further widening is going to be needed more or less right away. Therefore such a compromise is not likely to be as easy to achieve in this situation.

I raised the walkability of the new high school each time the Environmental Advisory Board reviewed the plans. I believe it was also raised on the night of the final approval, but there were too many details being addressed at all those meetings. By that time we had passed the point of resolving this issue. It had become political. The school was controversial to site and part of the compromise in the siting was an assurance that parking would be limited. And from what I can tell there really aren't any reasonable solutions beyond siting in a walkable area. I hope Mark Peters is right and that the school buses will continue to serve the south Orange neighborhoods. But what a waste!

That's why I think this is a planning issue--if we want a walkable community then we need to site developments in places that are walkable and connected, then provide the amenities needed to those developments on site or close by. Mixed use.....but the devil will be in the details.

Mark,

There is a great reason bike lanes are not a good idea on Smith Level Rd or many (all?) other roads around here: the steep grade makes it dangerous. For more about this see my discussion of high speed bicycling at:

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/
High_Speed.pdf

I'm in the process of updating this paper, but you'll get the gist.

Folks, lets abandon the bad idea that is bike lanes (bastustans/reservations). Quit REDUCING bicyclists' space to the worst part of the road in a substandard width "lane" guaranteed to be filled with all kinds of junk, while also de-legitimizing our use of the standard lane and enabling faster passing by motorists. Let's get rid of the mindset that by definition these glorified shoulders with the pretty name are a good thing, and stop trying to dupe people into thinking it is safe or safer.

How about this for bicycle driver empowerment: signs that say USE FULL LANE on steep descents.

Wayne
www.humantransport.org

Wayne,

I wasn't necessarily endorsing (or not) bike lanes on Smith Level . I just referrred in my post to sidewalk/bike lanes because Terri B and Mark C had. The only issue I was interested in was the question as to what was preventing NCDOT from adding "amenties" to this road. From Mark C.'s reply it would appear that NCDOT figures it will have to be four lanes and they don't want to do anything before they add those extra lanes. Of course, given recent experiences that might be 10+ years down the road.

Wayne, you have made your point about that already. The issue on Smith Level is not really the bikelanes.

Terri, your complaint seems to be about the high school siting in general - which is a matter that the Board of Aldermen had little (no?) say over. I agree with your overall point that Carrboro has not been adequately involved in school site planning in the past. I actually met with CHCCS staff about school siting issues just last week in an effort to remedy that situation.

Besides the planned school sites at Twin Creeks Park off Old 86, there are only a handful of feasible sites for schools in Carrboro. UNC is proposing to put two schools on Seawell School Road on the Horace Williams property and there are prehaps one or two other possible locations for schools in Carrboro beyond those. Two at Twin Creeks, two at Horace Williams and one or possibly two in the Northern Study Area = 5 or 6 more schools in Carrboro before this area is built out. Plus Carrboro High School can be expanded considerably at some point by building an addition on it.

This gets to a non-OP discussion we had, Terri, about the ultimate limtis to growth in this area. I think we need to take a serious look at the interaction between residential growth , drinking water supply and our capacity to build schools in the Chapel Hill Carrboro School District.

We need to seriously consider the question of whether we will one day have more urban schools (ie more compact). But the basic issue is that a high school site is currently thought to need 50 acres or so. You will never find a 50 acre site that is currently walkable because any 50 acre site must almost by definition be out at the edges of Chapel Hill or Carrboro. I have not formed any specific opinion about this matter, but I think we might as well talk about this question now, because we can begin to cause or prevent more compact schools by beginning that discussion now.

Mark, Terri and Others:

I would direct anyone interested in the idea that a school must have 50 acres to function properly to read a recent report conducted by UNC's Center for Urban and Regional Studies at the request of the Z Smith Reynolds Foundation. It can be found on this webpage:

Good Schools, Good Neighborhoods

Scroll down the page until you see the Good Schools, Good Neighborhoods title. The report is short (28 pages) and illuminating. In it you will see that much of the advisory guidance of the NC DPI (Dept of Public Instruction) is directly in conflict with many of our comprehensive planning goals in Carrboro.

For example, the 5 "prototype" high school designs listed by DPI average 76 acres, which is the size of 13-15 downtown Raleigh city blocks!

A simple way to get this ball rolling and plan for the future might be to compare the DPI guidelines to the Town's planning goals, decide where DPI's one-size-fits-all-exurbs approach does not fit with Carrboro's community goals, and find ways to diverge from the DPI practices.

Here's another good reference on how to build schools that don't consume so much land and they can become community spaces, in addition to being located in neighborhoods close to the children they serve: http://www.smart-schools.org/

Mark--I know the town doesn't have anything to say about school siting, and really that's part of my concern. How can we site a school without planning for how children will get to the school? How can we build a development and not plan for where they will get their groceries and the routes they will take to and from?

I was on the EAB when we were doing the first round of reviews on Carrboro's downtown traffic study. Our committee kept talking about how important it was to look at major destinations and then plan routes to and from and in between those destinations. For example, where will the residents of the new Claremont development shop for groceries, gas, and pharmaceuticals? How will they get to main campus or the medical center? If they want to ride the bus where should the stops be and can they cross the road safely? Where's the closest park and how will they access it? Can they get into Carrboro safely by bicycle? Is there redundancy in the plan--at least two ways to and from those major destinations?

Shouldn't questions like those be asked and solutions be in place at least concurrently with occupancy of any new development? Shouldn't the developers be held responsible for helping build that infrastructure? I was sorry that the EAB's idea of looking at major destinations and planning for redundancy wasn't adopted in the transportation plan. But there are plenty more opportunities coming.

Sure, but there are some legal limits to how far we can take that philosophy - for example, the fact that it is difficult ot bike from Claremont to Harris Teeter is not Claremont's fault. It is primarily the fault of a long series of decisions that were made in the past. It would not be right to ask Claremont to build the 3 miles of bicycle facilities that really should have been built before by others. On the other hand we clearly can demand that Claremont build a sidewalk along the part of Homestead Road where they are building the development (and we did).

As for shopping options in the northern part of Carrboro, the BOA is looking at that issue in 2006 (I realize that is a minor aspect of your point, but folks might be interested to know this).

I suppose that you could have an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance that would address some of the problems that you are talking about there (and indeed we do have such an ordinance regarding school capacity).

Of course there are limits. There's no way to solve decades of non-destination planning by expecting new developers to carry the full brunt of the make up. But as we adopt more smart growth principles, I hope that destination planning becomes part of the tool kit. We live and learn and then try and catch up.

BTW, all the developments going up in the NTA (northeast Carrboro) that I reviewed while on EAB have sidewalks along the road. But if the sidewalks don't go anywhere.....

Mark,

The issue on Smith Level Road IS about bike lanes in part or you wouldn't have initially mentioned it. And your comment "...the fact that it is difficult to bike from Claremont to Harris Teeter is not Claremont's fault. It is primarily the fault of a long series of decisions that were made in the past. It would not be right to ask Claremont to build the 3 miles of bicycle facilities that really should have been built before by others." indicates that in spite of me having "made my point," I must continue to educate you and others as to what my point is. There already are bicycle facilities everywhere: they are called roads. It's not difficult to bike those three miles unless one is out of shape.

There is only so much affordable/existent right-of-way, and when that pie is pressured to be carved into three parts for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians rather than rightly two parts for vehicle drivers or pedestrians, any "issues" are exacerbated. I will vigorously defend the long standing paradigm of bicycle users as drivers of vehicles rather than an artifically created third party that is the current pressure.

Anti-motorists don't want Smith Level to be 4 lanes, having a distorted utopian vision that making it 3 with bike lanes will somehow result in reduced motor traffic.

As far as the claim that sidewalks are "difficult" without curb and gutter, one needs only to look at Piney Mt Road to see that is suspect. Apparently your sidewalk experts have difficulty separating in their minds what is ideally desirable (sidewalk with curb and gutter) with what is better (sidewalk without curb and gutter) than nothing (a grass rut).

Wayne

Whne I said that you have made your point, I did not mean that I accept your point.

Mark,

Can you clarify what point of mine you don't accept? You don't accept my point that roads are bicycle facilities?

I've made Chapel Hill and the DOT aware that S Columbia Street is too steep for bike lanes (according to DOT's own design document), and Carrboro and the DOT should be made aware of this for Smith Level. One would think that those promoting/designing bike lanes would understand the engineering/operational constraints, but this is demonstrably not the case.

Wayne

Wayne, I don't accept the thesis that bike lanes are always a bad idea.

If you are frustrated that your arguments are not as persuasive to policymakers as you think they should be, then perhaps it would be worth reconsidering the way in which you make your arguments. The angry tone of your posts on this site (on numerous threads) is neither constructive nor persuasive.

I got an email from an OP reader about matters under discussion on this very thread - she mentioned explicitly that she was reluctant to post her thoughts here because she did not want to become the latest target of your comments. And quite frankly, I am not sure why I should bother to put myself in that position either, except that I am not inclined to simply concede this forum to you.

I don't want to sound angry myself here (I assure you I am not), but I think you should seriously reconsider your overall approach to public discourse. Seldom do the matters under discussion on OrangePolitics come down to questions for which there are absolute right and wrong answers. Most governmental decisions are about balancing a large number of competing considerations. Bike lanes fall into this same category - they are not always the right answer, but they are not always the wrong answer either. Can you see that?

But Mark, Wayne knows "everything" about cycling, don't you know? Except of course that it is best done with a motor between the wheels!

Mark,

I clearly indicated in a previous post that bike lanes are warranted on freeway design roads. Thus I do not think that bike lanes are always a bad idea, and you are incorrect in accusing me of this. Can you see that? They happen to be a bad idea in other applications, and I've provided plenty of rationale for that. Yet in response you simply say they are sometimes a good idea.

I've noted that bike lanes on E Popular (now removed) and Smith Level (potential bike lanes) are patently substandard/dangerous according to published design guidelines. The same holds true for Weaver St. (substandard width), W. Popular (substandard width), Pathway Drive (steep hill, residential road, with numerous driveways). There are others. Chapel Hill bike lanes are rife with demonstrable design mistakes. Do you still think that these bike lanes are a good idea? Every bike lane in Carrboro and Chapel Hill has worse surface conditions than the adjoining lane. Frankly, the bike lanes around here are an abomination.

I think you feel my posts are angry because they challenge your preconceived notions in a way that you had not considered before. Further, it is easy to feel threatened when one realizes that one is factually wrong. I've not attacked you or anyone else, only the ideas. If that is threatening to you or others, I suggest being better versed in the topic to better present a counterargument.

Since you seem to be so interested in bicycling, I'd be happy to ride with you on your convenience on an examination of local bicycling conditions.

John,

Yes, I do know everything about cycling. And, cycling IS done with a motor between the wheels.

Regards,
Wayne
www.bicyclinglife.com

Wayne,
To get to your article on high speed bicycling, I went to www.humantransport.org, then NC Coalition for Bicycling Driving, and then scrolled down the right menu to the article, "High Speed Bicycling."

I especially appreciate your photos on page 6, taken from different sections of the same road. One shows debris in the "bike lane." The other shows the clean surface of the "wide outside lane." I find this commonly holds true.

The debris may not look like much from the perspective of a car driver, however seen from above the bike's handlebars, believe me, my feet begin to quake in the pedals at the sight. The debris, plus the fact that motorists on the road expect me to stay to the right of the solid white line, puts me in the position of plowing straight ahead, praying all the way.

If I were to come to debris in the "wide outside lane," and if cyclists were expecting to truly Share the Road with me as a bicyclist, then, I would have more maneuverability and choice of path.

I suggest that bike lanes present significant safety hazards at all speeds.

Just this morning, there were two 8" planks of wood and tire refuse in different sections of the bike lane in front of McDougle Middle School.

Laura

Wayne, your ideas don't seem threatening to me. I just understand that a lot of bicyclists (or would-be bicyclists) don't WANT to ride in the street with cars. You want to force them into the street. I understand that. I just don't necessarily agree with it. Regardless, my real point is that your argument would be more persuasive if posited in a different way.

Mark,

Bike lanes are in the street with cars. The thinking that they provide a refuge gives some people psychological comfort (it also results in a lot of hazardous wrong way riding). Of course, these same folks know little about the actual mechanisms of typical car-bike collisions (turning/merging movements) and are overly concerned with the very rare possibility of getting struck from behind which they believe bike lanes prevent.

The notion that would-be bicyclists would ride if only there were bike lanes is largely bogus. They could ride on sidewalks if they really liked cycling. Some do. I'm not endorsing that, just noting.

Bike lane opponents typically have gone through the bike-lanes-are-wonderful phase and therefore know what that is like and therefore know that many/most beginners or would-be bicyclists are in fact operationally better off without bike lane stripes.

I think you understand that a lot of bicyclists don't want to be forced to ride in bike lanes, but when they exist there is little recourse. Further, we know that they micro manage our road use to our detriment and motorists' benefit.

Wayne

Mark,
Bike lanes are on the street. How one (bicyclist or would-be bicyclist) could feel that a painted white line on the street offers some kind of protection is beyond me, especially given the hazardous road surface condition and narrowness of the pavement to the right of that painted line. (Not to mention gutters and unexpectedly vanishing "bike lanes.")

Sharing a wide outside lane with cars offers the biker so much more visibility and maneuverability. The mindset of motorists that bikers BELONG in the bike lane and only in the bike lane sets up conditions that put the bicyclist at risk.

Perhaps folks have ridden a bike in a "wide outside lane" and enjoyed it, and all of this is just a matter of semantics...

Laura

hey, Wayne? Mark? maybe y'all should just agree to disagree? Or just get a ruler...

Gosh Wayne,
We were writing much of the same comments simultaneously! :)

Laura

Mark,

Bike lanes ARE in the street with cars. The thinking that they provide a refuge gives some people psychological comfort (it also results in a lot of hazardous wrong way riding). Of course, these same folks know little about the actual mechanisms of typical car-bike collisions (turning/merging movements) and are overly concerned with the very rare possibility of getting struck from behind which they believe bike lanes prevent.

The notion that would-be bicyclists would ride if only there were bike lanes is largely bogus. They could ride on sidewalks if they really liked cycling. Some do, and are by definition not would-be bicyclists anymore. I'm not endorsing that, just noting.

Bike lane opponents typically have gone through the bike-lanes-are-wonderful phase and therefore know what that is like and therefore know that many/most beginners or would-be bicyclists are in fact operationally better off without bike lane stripes.

I think you understand that a lot of bicyclists don't want to be forced to ride in bike lanes, but when they exist there is little recourse. Further, we know that they micro manage our road use to our detriment, and motorists' benefit.

I've tried many different methods of persuasion over many years. No technique is particularly effective because bike lane proponents rely on superstition and fear, and are aligned with the motoring majority which wants bicyclists out of their way and who happen to also be those who are responsible for laying the bike lane stripes.

Here's a case study for you. When Pathway Dr was recently resurfaced, I told Dale McKeel that bike lanes are not warranted on a residential street with numerous driveways, and in fact are dangerous on the steep hill. His response was that Pathway is a collector and the policy is that collectors get bike lanes. Perish the though of actually thinking things through. It's much easier to simply follow a policy. So, minimal 3' of pavement bike lanes were striped which are part time parking and full time debris areas. Interestingly, although it is classified a collector, it doesn't have a center stripe, because a centerline makes it into a higher order road enabling/encouraging higher speed. Yet, bike lanes (glorified shoulders) were striped which of course are a treatment for higher order roads. Net result: bicyclists are "given" 3' of crummy space while motorists are left with enough room to drive the Queen Mary down the choice center of the road.

Case Study 2. Newly built Weaver Dairy Road extension connecting into Homestead Rd has a bike lane on one side of the street. What's with that!? The road width apparently only allowed a bike lane on one side. But instead of simply and logically dividing the road into two wide lanes making a superior road in both directions, in their zeal to acquire bike lanes just one was striped.

I can go on and on. And I will.

Wayne

Oh my! Great minds think EXACTLY alike :-) I can't believe we wrote the exact same words nearly simultaneously.

Wayne, or maybe I'm Laura

Laura,

That website is a collaboration of Steve Goodridge and Bruce Rosar in Cary, Jeremy Raw in Durham, and myself. Please take the time to check out all the links. We'll be adding a critique soon that will blow your shorts off.

I'm in the process of adding a section to the High Speed paper but I'm having a problem making a WordPerfect graphic look good before I have it uploaded. I did add a beautiful picture that you just have to see. If you give my your email I'll send it.

Wayne
wpein@nc.rr.com

"I can go on and on. And I will." This type of disdain for productive dialogue may lead to your participation on OrangePolitics being restricted. Just FYI.

Sorry for the double post. The first is incomplete; the second is complete.

Wayne

Ruby,

You once again misinterpret me. I meant that I will at some point in the future disclose all the ubiquitous bicycling infrastructure problems locally, in a report. Probably a powerpoint.

If you've misinterpreted my numerous published writings on bicycling (though I doubt you've read much) to the extent that you have my postings on OP, its no wonder you've characterized my beliefs as "radical."

Your threat of censorship gives a window into your soul.

Regards,
Wayne
Radical Bicyclist

"Your threat of censorship gives a window into your soul."

Wayne,

Give it (and us) a break. Turn off your crystal ball.

This entry (I promise) is not to expound on my preference for wide outside lanes! It is to invite folks to participate in a bike riding education course.

Regardless of whether we are bicycling in a bike lane or a wide outside lane, we are still "riding in the street with cars."

The skill sets that are covered in the class are extremely valuable for meeting a variety of in-town road conditions- such as RR tracks, wide and narrow lanes, 2, 3, 4 lane roads, right and left turn lanes only, etc.

The class is 9 hours and alternates classroom lecture time with riding on the street as a group.

The class is given by the League of American Biyclists and it's fun! (The most intimidating part was taking apart the wheel to learn how to change a flat tire.)

I am just pulling the session together and will post specifics in the WSM Newsletter. I'll also post info on OP.

Laura

Laura,

The bike riding education course is a great idea. What I'd really like to see however, and I've encouraged Wayne to do, is to get such information to the schools and kids. A youngster who understands how to ride a bike safely and the rights of cyclists will ultimately be a better motorist as well.

Laura, George makes a good point. I am a transportation and recreational cyclist (mostly I ride for transportation, though). I am not worried about myself so much. I am worried about my (future) kids.

I really like the idea of a bike riding education course at the schools. I had wanted to do something with our PTA. I remember, in the old days when I was in grade school, I rode my bike on a course on the school playground while police officers gave us pointers. It would be good for the elementary kids but maybe a bit more challenging for middle school and high school (but not impossible). I can be reached at terhorst at bellsouth dot net.
Marc

The Orange County Sheriffs department conducts bicycle safety programs for schools upon request. However, I doubt if their safety tips include how to safely ride in traffic. They will also come out and do the course for neighborhood associations.

Terri

George,

Ruby's threat to censor me is indeed a look into her mindset. First, she could have sent me a private message, but instead made it public. What's with that? Second, others have taken jabs, albeit minor, at me with no such comment from her. Third, its pretty obvious that she doesn't agree with me or like the way I characterize a sacred cow of hers (even though, as far as I know, she doesn't even ride a bike), and given that, its easy for her to misinterpret me multiple times.

As far as educating the public about bicycling, I've published a booklet specific to this area called Road Vogue which is for sale in bike shops. A watered down version is on humantransport.org. I offered it to the Town and UNC for their production and free distribution, but they couldn't care less, so I was forced to publish it myself and sell it. I also created a tri-fold brochure which has been freely distrubuted at street fairs. A vast amount of great eductional information is located at humantransport.org (and bicyclinglife.com). There's even a great vintage movie that Steve Goodridge uploaded and slightly modified (I think) that would be perfect for young kids. I wrote much of the wording for the DMV in the updated Driver's Handbook at:
http://www.ncdot.org/dmv/driver_services/drivershandbook
/chapter6/bicycles.html
There are a couple of nice graphics in the pdf version.
I analyzed 7 years of local bike-car crashes, and presented the illustrated report to the Town and the police. They couldn't care less. Actually, I believe they may hold me in contempt because it, along with my lobbying, forced them to get rid of the sidewalk BIKE PATH signs (although at least one still exists on Raleigh RD) they were so enamored with.

The fact is, people don't value bicycling education because they think they know all they need to know. Bike lanes and sidewalk "bike paths" exacerbate this. They make it safe! (choke).

There was a local Effective Cycling class scheduled recently, but only one person, from Raleigh no less, signed up, so it was cancelled. Even though Chapel Hill's B&P Committe pushed for this class, none of them signed up! Lord knows they need it. People say its a great idea but obviously not for themselves.

In reality, what most people "know" about bicycling is 180 degrees wrong. The other reality is that if you simply follow the rules, you'll most likely do fine. Riding more assertively (e.g. much further into the lane) and having an understanding of the most likely mechanisms of collisions is, I believe, crucial and about all it takes to constitute moderately advanced riding.

Wayne

"In reality, what most people “know” about bicycling is 180 degrees wrong."

Wayne, this comment illustrates the point I was trying to make. If you want to change how people think about cycling, both safety and cyclists' rights, you should start by educating the children. This may not (in fact, certainly won't) get the results you want overnight, or even in a decade, but if you really want to change the mindset of a disproportionately large majority of the people, you need to start before those habits and opinions are set.

You know that I don't often agree with you on bikelanes (although I do agree that they aren't right for all situations) but I do agree that the motoring public doesn't seem to understand the rights of cyclists to the use of the same roadways. But I respect your passion for cycling and I've always felt that if you could convert some of that passion into educating the next generation of cyclists about safety and their rights you would accomplish much more than belittling those who disagree with you.

Here's a relevant story:

My sister and brother-in-law retired three years ago to
Venice, Florida, and I often visit them. While there
I rarely use a car, rather Steve's bicycle is my daily mode
of transportation. The area is flat, so bicycling is easy, though
sometimes the wind can be a hindrance. While Venice is
building many bike paths for recreation, especially along
the banks of the Intracostal Waterway, there are
poor facilities for bicycle transportation. Florida DOT is
no better than NCDOT.

There is a unique problem there. The median age in
Venice is 69! Compare that to Chapel Hill's 24.9. Even I'm
young down there. The elderly drivers, at the risk of
stereotyping, are not agressive, indeed they tend to be
slow, but they don't see well, don't react well to
the world outside their cars, and many of them no longer
control their cars well. This is a prescription for death-by-bicycle.
I have nearly been run over several
times by elderly people who must have thought that I took
an invisible pill. When they finally realize
that they almost hit me, their reaction is typically
"Where did you come from?", even though I was there
all along, wearing a bright yellow windbreaker during
daylight hours.

My message here is that the argument about the pros
and cons of striped bikelanes versus wide outside lanes
is meaningless. The bicyclist has to have a path that
keeps him physically separate from the cars, so that
it becomes impossible for the driver to hit the bicylist.

I can accomplish this by
avoiding the main roads, rather riding through the
quiet neighborhoods that parallel the main roads.
(This has a serindipitous benefit of seeing lots of
50-year-old Florida fauna and flora.)
However I can't achieve this when the street layout,
usually caused by creeks and streams,
forces me onto the main road without a
physical barrier between the cars and me, and there
is the problem.

The last thing I would do in Venice is to "take the lane",
that is exert my authority to use the center of the
lane, as a car does. My experience
is that such action is simply Florida bicycle suicide.

Joe,

The bicyclist has to have a path that
keeps him physically separate from the cars, so that
it becomes impossible for the driver to hit the bicylist."

That's unrealistic.

Wayne

Pages

 

Community Guidelines

By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.

 

Content license

By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Creative Commons License

 
Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.