senior hit by a bicyclist on the sidewalk in sf

[pt]

a senior was hit by a bicyclist on the sidewalk in sf and broke both of her wrists...walksf is there, not with protests, not with the media, not calling for bans on bikes (bikes are on all sidewalks in sf), but looking to provide bike lanes. below is the blurb from the walksf newsletter.

accidents are always going to happen, it's horrible to read about this.

also interesting that according to the newsletter that even -cyclists- do not feel safe due to the excessive speed of cars in the street.

why don't they lower the speed limit, enforce the speed limit and educate people (driver and cyclists) ?

be safe out there folks.

cheers,
pt

Walk San Francisco
Your Pedestrian Advocacy Organization
Newsletter for June 6th, 2003

FELL STREET BIKE LANES FOR KEEPING BIKES OFF OF SIDEWALK
The Board of Supervisors is finally going to vote on the Fell Street bike lanes proposal. These bike lanes between Scott and Baker Streets are key for improving pedestrian safety. Right now bicyclists do not feel safe riding on Fell Street due to the excessive speed of the cars. Unfortunately many bicyclists therefore ride on the sidewalks and endanger pedestrians. In fact, a senior was hit by a bicyclist on the sidewalk there and broke both of her wrists. This is just plain wrong!!! We need to ensure that the city provides bicycle lanes for the few blocks on Fell so that we have safe sidewalks for pedestrians.

======================

segway ht journal:
http://www.bookofseg.com

other stuff:
http://www.flashenabled.com

[pt]

if and when there is a segway accident, do you think they will say a person was hit by a segwayist / segway rider...or will they say a person was hit by a segway and shift to the product? i hope people look at person as opposed to the mode, as much as possible when unfortunate things happen.

cheers,
pt




======================

segway ht journal:
http://www.bookofseg.com

other stuff:
http://www.flashenabled.com

[bicycledriver]

Bicyclists who operate in narrow travel lanes on city streets are much less likely to be involved in car-bike crashes than are sidewalk cyclists, but are more likely to be harassed by militant motorists, especially if they operate in the center of the lane. Cyclists who hug the right edge of narrow travel lanes often experience very close passing by motorists. These unlawful acts by motorists make some cyclists very uncomfortable and is responsible for much of the sidewalk cycling seen in cities.

Motorist harassment of cyclists operating in the middle of narrow travel lanes is due to the motorist's perception of inconvenience, or due to the motorist's incorrect belief that motor power gives the motorist some symbolic priority over non-motor traffic on the roadway. There are three ways to address this problem: one is to reduce the motorist's actual delay, the second is to reduce the motorist't perception of delay, and the third is to reduce the motorist's belief in superiority over nonmotorized users.

To reduce any actual (but small) delay to the average motorist requires the addition of an improved passing facility for the motorist. This usually requires widening the roadway. Additional passing space can be created to allow the motorist to pass without changing lanes, or another lane can be added to provide a way for the driver to pass by changing lanes.

Simply adding lanes, however, does not reduce the motorist's *perception* of delay if the adjacent lane ends up carrying enough traffic to make lane changes inconvenient. This is why many motorists say they like to be able to pass cyclists without changing lanes. Motorists who don't like changing lanes to pass cyclists still harass cyclists. Thus instead of adding more narrow travel lanes, which would reduce the actual delay for all drivers, the approach that many cyclists say that they prefer if for the pavement to be configured wide enough that drivers can pass at safe distance without changing lanes. If the right of way space is limited, as in urban areas, the additional passing distance space must come by either eliminating one or more travel lanes, or by eliminating one or more rows of on-street parking. There are some places where lane count reductions combined with turn pocket additions can make traffic move more smoothly and safely with no significant increase in travel time, but this is often not the case in truly congested downtown areas. Thus with travel or parking lane removal the militant motorist's *perception* of inconvenience from a bicyclist is reduced at the expense of greater actual inconvenience to motoring overall even when no cyclists are present.

Some cities try to add bicycle lane stripes to a given width of pavement without creating any more physical space for passing at safe distance. This does nothing to increase cyclist safety and results in greater harassment of cyclists who stay outide the bike lane to avoid debris, avoid park cars, improve sight lines at junctions, prepare to turn left, etc.

The easiest remedy is to reduce militant motorists' assumption of symbolic priority based on motor use through law enforcement and education. Police should operate bicycles in travel lanes according to the rules of the road to set a proper example for all, and to provide the opportunity for more effective law enforcement to protect cyclists' rights.

In the capital city of Raleigh, NC, daylight overtaking car-bike collisions amount to less than 3% of all car-bike collisions reported in the city over a 5 year period. The vast majority of collisions involve intersection errors and other junction misjudgements. Bike lane *stripes* cannot make any significant change in car-bike collisions and just confuse the issues. http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pbcat/

-Steve Goodridge

[BruceWright]

Keep SF sidewalks safe from two-wheeled bullets!

Awww, pt. You're preaching to the choir here.

WalkSF again shows itself to be a political organization rather than a true safety advocate.

-Bruce Wright

Segway: Vehicle of Dream

[BruceWright]

Oh, and that bicyclist was going WAY too fast. *Nobody* should travel on the sidewalk so fast that they have people or no clear view in excess of their stopping distance. That includes Segways, bikes, skates, jogging strollers, feet.

-Bruce Wright

Segway: Vehicle of Dream

[pt]

it's my opinion (recently) that some cyclists are doing exactly what they hate, having superiority and harassment over -other- users like segways for example.

for the first time i had a couple cyclist call me lazy. i spoke with both and they were both sorry after we chatted, they also agreed that they're doing exactly what happens to us (us as in, i am a cyclist as well). it was interesting to see their opinion go from, he's lazy to he's one of us...

i guess, there's always a "bigger fish" or a "smaller fish" that you eat or that can eat you.

cheers,
pt



======================

segway ht journal:
http://www.bookofseg.com

other stuff:
http://www.flashenabled.com

[sfh1790]

Bicycle and segway enthusiasts should be natural allies.

Both want a small amount of the community transportation infrastructure set aside, so that non-fossil-fuel powered vehicles can become a realistic choice for meeting people’s short-range transportation needs.

My experience is that some bicyclists seem threatened by, or at least disdainful of, Segway riders. I don’t understand why.

The most common negative comment I hear from bicycle riders is that using a Segway is “lazy” or “unhealthy”. I think they’re missing the point. I didn’t buy a Segway as an exercise machine. There are lots of other ways to get physical exercise.

I bought a Segway because I think it has a chance of becoming a sustainable transportation choice in the urban village environment where I live.

I hope all bicyclists are willing to work together to help make those choices available to everyone.

sh
sheng@drizzle.com

[Peter iNova]

I almost hit two bicyclists in one move, once. I was pulling out of a driveway into the street across a bicycle lane, watching for everything, and stopped hard because the two, father and young daughter of about 9, zipped out from behind a parked vehicle riding along the bicycle lane AGAINST THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC! "Hey, it's a bicycle lane, we can go any direction we please!"

Great lesson to the offspring, dad. I hope she lasts.

-iNova

http://www.glidewalk.com

[bicycledriver]

quote:Originally posted by sfh1790

Bicycle and segway enthusiasts should be natural allies.

Both want a small amount of the community transportation infrastructure set aside, so that non-fossil-fuel powered vehicles can become a realistic choice for meeting people’s short-range transportation needs.


Not all cyclists want a portion of the transportation infrastructure set aside for bicycle use. These cyclists are more interested in having their right to use the existing transportation infrastructure (roadways) protected, because the existing infrastructure provides access to all destinations, and is often superior to bicycle-specific faciity designs. Many of the bicycle-specific facility designs are proposed and designed by those in the highway establishment whose primary motivation is to get cyclists out of the way of motorists, for motorists' convenience, without much consideration for their effect on the most common causes of injuries to cyclists. Other bicycle-specific designs are created by landscape architects who think of cyclists as "rolling pedestrians", again without an understanding of the effect of these designs on the most common causes of injuries to cyclists.

Bicycle-specific facilities segregate drivers of bicycles from the facilities available to drivers of motor vehicles. In many cases this segregation forces cyclists to use inferior facilities, increases the hazards faced by cyclists, or reduces the convenience of cycling. Within the right of way of ordinary streets, the disadvantages of segregation almost always outweigh the advantages of segregation. But for very high speed facilities like controlled access freeways, segregation may be warranted. Many bicycle drivers insist that segregation not be used except where there is strong scientifically valid evidence of operational advantages to cyclists that outweigh the operational disadvantages and stigmatization of cyclists who avoid using the minority facility for safety reasons.

Steve Goodridge

[bicycledriver]

quote:Originally posted by Peter iNova

I almost hit two bicyclists in one move, once. I was pulling out of a driveway into the street across a bicycle lane, watching for everything, and stopped hard because the two, father and young daughter of about 9, zipped out from behind a parked vehicle riding along the bicycle lane AGAINST THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC! "Hey, it's a bicycle lane, we can go any direction we please!"


This is a common problem. Bicycle lane stripes inhibit some road users' understanding of effective traffic choreography and collision prevention. The psychological and cultural emphasis ends up on the class-segregation stripe and "turf" issues rather than the reasons behind real-world traffic conflicts.

Steve Goodridge

[BruceWright]

Sh,

I think that in the beginning, bicyclists biked because they enjoyed it. But because of percieved inferiority to the car, they justified it as exercize. Thus they have an attitude of superiority, and they can sneer at anyone who is a rude driver.

That justification becomes so strong, and so much a part of what being a bicyclist is all about that they don't seem to grasp that it's not about which way of travel is "better". It's just about doing whatever turns you on (to use a phrase from my parents' generation). Why do they care if I ride a Segway and get my exercize from running a treadmill or swimming?

Why? Because we are in "their" space. We aren't ashamed to eschew the automobile and ride with the wind in our hair.

We're showing that the "protestant work-ethic of transportation" isn't the only way to travel without a car.

Sure, we have the moral superiority of reduced emissions. They still have us trumped with the moral superiority of less emissions AND more exercize. Don't think they'll let you forget that for an instant! ;)

But then we can be morally superior to them in that we eschew moral superiority in favor of an egaltarian ethic. (Don't think about that one too hard)

Awww... Who cares anyway. In 20 years Segway owners will be complaning about the new hoverboards invading OUR space, and what's with the lazy people who don't they exersize their leaning ability anymore?


-Bruce Wright

Segway: Vehicle of Dream

[bicycledriver]

quote:Originally posted by pt

it's my opinion (recently) that some cyclists are doing exactly what they hate, having superiority and harassment over -other- users like segways for example.

for the first time i had a couple cyclist call me lazy. i spoke with both and they were both sorry after we chatted, they also agreed that they're doing exactly what happens to us (us as in, i am a cyclist as well). it was interesting to see their opinion go from, he's lazy to he's one of us...

i guess, there's always a "bigger fish" or a "smaller fish" that you eat or that can eat you.


Human nature means that no class of road users has a monopoly on virtue. Some cyclists who feel intimidated by motorists end up passing on their frustration and disregard onto pedestrians on walkway facilities. Some cyclists who feel that the rules of the road are not being enforced to protect them from aggressive motorists end up feeling less inclined to obey the traffic rules themselves. Some cyclists who feel attacked for their choice of travel mode jump at the chance to attack others for theirs.

But we know that two wrongs don't make a right. Responsible cyclist advocates try to promote empathy for others' choice of travel mode and their right to share public facilities.

-Steve Goodridge

[sfh1790]

Steve -

Thanks for the clarification. As usual, things are more complicated than I thought...:) I have to admit that my model of what "bike lanes" (need a Segway-inclusive term) should be is based on my trips to Europe, and specifically several stays in the Netherlands. A very different world than the US, and probably not a topic for this thread.

I still hope that some bicyclists would support the expansion of bike lanes in particular, and transportation alternatives in general.

sh
sheng@drizzle.com

[segwayowner]

this juist reaffirms our ideas

DES: Segway owner

[bicycledriver]

quote:Originally posted by sfh1790

I still hope that some bicyclists would support the expansion of bike lanes in particular, and transportation alternatives in general.



I support the addition of improved passing facilities to roadways where motorists, cyclists, and/or traffic engineers believe these overtaking facilities would cut down on friction or turbulence between users. I generally do not support the creation of segregated "bicyclists-should-operate-here" facilities in the right of way of ordinary streets such that they treat cyclists as less than equal drivers of vehicles.

I support the allowance of a wide diversity of vehicle types on public streets. I believe that the degree of regulation and restriction placed on vehicles should be proportional to their weight, size, and/or sustained speed, which correlate with their ability to harm other persons or property. A vehicle should *not* be restricted from an ordinary street just because it is smaller, lighter, or slower (i.e. intrinsically safer) than other vehicles on the street.

-Steve Goodridge
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/