November 2009 - Bikeboard - lists.frackcheckwv.net

REI page
by Chet Parsons 30 Nov '09

30 Nov '09

All - just ran across this page randomly. Neat tips and tricks, plus there's a free iPhone app over on the right side if you're interested. http://www.rei.com/bikeyourdrive Chet

1 0

BB report to TC
by Frank Gmeindl 30 Nov '09

30 Nov '09

Bicycle Board Members, Attached is a proposed November Bicycle Board report to the Traffic Commission. If you would like me to change anything in it, please reply ASAP. I intend to submit the report to the Traffic Commission secretary in time for her to have it first thing tomorrow morning. Frank /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/

1 0

Re: [Bikeboard] Campus Connector letter to TC
by Frank Gmeindl 30 Nov '09

30 Nov '09

Chip, Jim, If I'm going to get this letter in front of the TC in time for Wednesday's meeting, I am going to submit it today as attached. I did not include Jim's recommended changes but it does include earlier changes recommended by Derek seconded by Chip and recommended by Jenny and by Don Spencer. I could not figure out how to work in Chip's recommendation about Jim's since adding "safe alternative convenient option" begs for additional explanation of "alternative to what?". Since Chip was the only BB member to contribute guidance, I assume the remaining BB members were OK with it as it was. If anybody can't live with this, please reply ASAP as I will submit something in time for the TC secretary to have it first thing tomorrow morning. Frank /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/ On 11/25/2009 10:01 AM, Chip Wamsley wrote: > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > From: Frank Gmeindl <fgmeindl(a)verizon.net> > Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:48:33 -0500 > > > Frank et al, > > safe alternative. . .convenient option. . .(combination of both?) > > Chip > > >> Jim, >> >> I'm going to need guidance from other BB members to decide what to do >> with your comments and questions. Personally, I would answer your first >> question, no, and your second question, yes. What do other BB members >> think? >> >> Of course, whether an option is "convenient" is a matter of subjective >> personal judgment. So is "safe", which you added. >> >> I must say that Hugh's original draft said, "The lack of a *viable* >> option to connect these two areas discourages citizens from using >> alternative modes such as walking and bicycling...". Having cycled >> frequently through downtown Morgantown and Evansdale for 30 years and >> having walked happily between Evansdale and downtown at least twice >> daily for 3 years, I opined that doing so is viable. I suggested >> replacing "viable" with "convenient" and Hugh accepted the change. >> >> Derek's change seconded by Chip was a simple grammatical improvement and >> thus easy to accept. >> >> Jonathan's change to omit language was easy to incorporate because as he >> explained, it would have weakened our argument to get the boundaries >> defined and was in fact outside the scope of the decision made at the >> last BB meeting which did not include funding. >> >> Jenny's change to add "water tower" to greenhouse for the destination >> clarified the destination which I understand is in the vicinity of these >> two landmarks. >> >> I will change the letter to say whatever is the consensus of the BB >> members. I incorporated Derek's, Jonathan's and Jenny's changes because >> I judged, hopefully correctly, that if we had adequate discussion of >> those changes the BB members would have agreed by consensus to include >> them. I don't have that confidence with your recommended changes, >> indeed, you did not propose an alternative to "compelled", therefore I >> ask for guidance from the BB members. >> >> Frank >> /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/ >> >> On 11/23/2009 10:02 PM, jimrye_adelphia1(a)comcast.net wrote: >> >>> I am fine with sending the letter as is. However, I do raise a couple >>> of concerns with the introductory sentence. IâEUR^(TM)m not certain that >>> âEURoelack of a convenient option to connect these two areasâEUR? is entirely >>> true. The PRT does connect these two campuses and is a convenient >>> (and free) option to WVU students, faculty, and staff...except for >>> those time periods that it is not running. Instead, would it be >>> better to say something like âEURoelack of a safe and convenient >>> infrastructure for non-motorized transit between these two campusesâEUR¦âEUR?? >>> Additionally, at the end of the sentence it states âEURoecompelled to use >>> cars to travel back and forth.âEUR? Many folks choose to use cars instead >>> of riding the PRTâEUR¦is âEURoecompelledâEUR? the best word? >>> >>> >>> jimrye_adelphia1(a)comcast.net <mailto:jimrye_adelphia1@comcast.net> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Frank Gmeindl" <fgmeindl(a)verizon.net> >>> To: "Jonathan Rosenbaum" <freesource(a)cheat.org> >>> Cc: "Bicycle Board" <bikeboard(a)cheat.org> >>> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 2:28:26 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern >>> Subject: Re: [Bikeboard] Campus Connector letter to TC >>> >>> Bicycle Board Members, >>> >>> I am still waiting to hear from >>> >>> * Marilyn, >>> * Jim, >>> * Alice and >>> * Janel >>> >>> on the Campus Connector letter to the Traffic Commission. Attached is >>> a revision of the letter that incorporates changes suggested by Derek, >>> Chip, Jenny and Jonathan. If anybody has any problem with it, please >>> let me know. >>> >>> Following is the status of responses to the original letter: >>> >>> Response date Comments >>> 1. Donald Dickerson 11-Nov the letter sounds good to me >>> 2. Paul Becker 11-Nov Concur. >>> 3. Hugh Kierig 10-Nov >>> 4. Jacob Brown 11-Nov Looking good, I'm in concurrence as well! >>> 5. Elizabeth Shogren 20-Nov gunnar concurred for Betsy >>> 6. Gunnar Shogren 20-Nov Betsy and I concur. >>> 7. Frank Gmeindl 11-Nov >>> 8. Marilyn Newcome >>> 9. Jonathan Rosenbaum 23-Nov The letter delivers a strong >>> argument... Change: "Two major stumbling blocks to seeing the >>> Connector a reality have always been obtaining adequate right-of-way >>> from private land owners and the actual cost of the construction." to >>> "The major stumbling block to seeing the Connector a reality has >>> always been obtaining adequate right-of-way from private land owners." >>> 10. Don Spencer 19-Nov I think that it would be stronger to make >>> this a joint effort with the Pedestrian Safety Board. They are fully >>> on board with this project and even have it listed in their Pedestrian >>> Safety Plan which has been approved by the Traffic Commission and will >>> be going to Council soon. >>> 11. Chet Parsons 11-Nov Very well done! >>> 12. Jim Rye >>> 13. Derek Springston 11-Nov Change Bicycle Board hope to Bicycle >>> Board's hope >>> 14. Chip Wamsley 11-Nov Change Bicycle Board hope to Bicycle Board's >>> hope >>> 15. Alice Vernon >>> 16. Janel Bedard >>> >>> >>> Frank >>> /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles >>> >>> /On 11/23/2009 12:04 AM, Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote: >>> >>> The letter delivers a strong argument, and I agree with Derek's >>> improvement, however, there is one sentence that I am concerned >>> about that may contribute to a leaky argument: >>> >>> Two major stumbling blocks to seeing the Connector a reality >>> have always been obtaining adequate right-of-way from private >>> land owners and the actual cost of the construction. >>> >>> If you are reading the sentence in this fashion, it works fine: >>> >>> Two major stumbling blocks to seeing the Connector a reality >>> have always been obtaining adequate right-of-way from private >>> land owners and obtaining the actual cost of the construction. >>> >>> About ten years ago when the City first visited this request the >>> second argument become the reason for not pursuing the project. >>> The costs were determined on the basis of a hand drawn map taking >>> into consideration elevation and ADA requirements. Because there >>> was never a formal study performed, the project was not given a >>> fair opportunity. I would hate to see that happen again. At our >>> CC meetings we targeted several methods that could provide >>> funding, but none of that mattered in the absence of an actual >>> route without any property barriers. Our purpose of this letter >>> is not to make a vague statement establishing how costs are one of >>> the major stumbling blocks of which we have no hard data about, >>> but rather to ask the City to formally establish where the CC >>> route can exist in regards to private properties that the CC would >>> have to cross. So I would like to see the word "obtaining" added >>> to the concerned sentence above or even better have the sentence >>> reworded as below: >>> >>> The major stumbling block to seeing the Connector a reality >>> has always been obtaining adequate right-of-way from private >>> land owners. >>> >>> Finally, when considering what the real costs of the CC are, >>> listen to what Bill Reger-Nash said in regards to the net gains it >>> will have on human health: "The CC will have an unaccountable >>> influence." >>> >>> -Jonathan >>> >>> >>> Frank Gmeindl wrote: >>> >>> Bicycle Board Members, >>> >>> Thanks to Hugh for promptly writing subject letter. Thanks to >>> Don D., Paul, Jake, Chet, Derek, Chip and Don S. for their >>> concurrence or recommended improvements. >>> >>> As we agreed at the November meeting, I will deliver the >>> letter to the Traffic Commission after everyone concurs. >>> Following is a table that lists the responses. Derek's, >>> Chip's and Don Spencer's comments can be addressed without BB >>> discussion. >>> >>> In case it comes through illegible on your end, Betsy, gunnar, >>> Marilyn, Jonathan, Jim, Alice, Janel, I'm waiting for your >>> concurrence or comments. >>> >>> Member Response date Comments >>> 1. Donald Dickerson 11-Nov the letter sounds good to me >>> 2. Paul Becker 11-Nov Concur. >>> 3. Hugh Kierig 10-Nov Created the letter >>> 4. Jacob Brown 11-Nov Looking good, I'm in concurrence as well! >>> 5. Elizabeth Shogren >>> 6. Gunnar Shogren >>> 7. Frank Gmeindl >>> 11-Nov Concur. >>> 8. Marilyn Newcome >>> 9. Jonathan Rosenbaum >>> 10. Don Spencer 19-Nov I think that it would be stronger to >>> make this a joint effort with the Pedestrian Safety Board. >>> They are fully on board with this project and even have it >>> listed in their Pedestrian Safety Plan which has been approved >>> by the Traffic Commission and will be going to Council soon. >>> 11. Chet Parsons 11-Nov Very well done! >>> 12. Jim Rye >>> 13. Derek Springston 11-Nov Change Bicycle Board hope to >>> Bicycle Board's hope >>> 14. Chip Wamsley 11-Nov Change Bicycle Board hope to Bicycle >>> Board's hope >>> 15. Alice Vernon >>> 16. Janel Bedard >>> >>> >>> Frank >>> /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers >>> of vehicles/ >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> _______________________________________________ Bikeboard mailing list Bikeboard@cheat.orghttp://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ Bikeboard mailing list >>> Bikeboard(a)cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard >>> >> >> >> >> > > > >

1 0

Interesting article on Treehugger from Wired.com
by director 26 Nov '09

26 Nov '09

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/11/fixcityorg-crowdsourced-bike-racks/ Happy Thanksgiving! Nick -- Nick Hein LCI# 1705 Director, Positive Spin 2567 Univ Ave Ste 6000L Morgantown, WV ph 304-276-0213 --

1 0

Campus Connector letter to TC
by Frank Gmeindl 25 Nov '09

25 Nov '09

Bicycle Board Members, Thanks to Hugh for promptly writing subject letter. Thanks to Don D., Paul, Jake, Chet, Derek, Chip and Don S. for their concurrence or recommended improvements. As we agreed at the November meeting, I will deliver the letter to the Traffic Commission after everyone concurs. Following is a table that lists the responses. Derek's, Chip's and Don Spencer's comments can be addressed without BB discussion. In case it comes through illegible on your end, Betsy, gunnar, Marilyn, Jonathan, Jim, Alice, Janel, I'm waiting for your concurrence or comments. Member Response date Comments 1. Donald Dickerson 11-Nov the letter sounds good to me 2. Paul Becker 11-Nov Concur. 3. Hugh Kierig 10-Nov Created the letter 4. Jacob Brown 11-Nov Looking good, I'm in concurrence as well! 5. Elizabeth Shogren 6. Gunnar Shogren 7. Frank Gmeindl 11-Nov Concur. 8. Marilyn Newcome 9. Jonathan Rosenbaum 10. Don Spencer 19-Nov I think that it would be stronger to make this a joint effort with the Pedestrian Safety Board. They are fully on board with this project and even have it listed in their Pedestrian Safety Plan which has been approved by the Traffic Commission and will be going to Council soon. 11. Chet Parsons 11-Nov Very well done! 12. Jim Rye 13. Derek Springston 11-Nov Change Bicycle Board hope to Bicycle Board's hope 14. Chip Wamsley 11-Nov Change Bicycle Board hope to Bicycle Board's hope 15. Alice Vernon 16. Janel Bedard Frank /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/

4 4

Re: [Bikeboard] Campus Connector letter to TC
by jimrye_adelphia1＠comcast.net 25 Nov '09

25 Nov '09

I am fine with sending the letter as is. However, I do raise a couple of concerns with the introductory sentence. I’m not certain that “lack of a convenient option to connect these two areas” is entirely true. The PRT does connect these two campuses and is a convenient (and free) option to WVU students, faculty, and staff...except for those time periods that it is not running. Instead, would it be better to say something like “lack of a safe and convenient infrastructure for non-motorized transit between these two campuses…”? Additionally, at the end of the sentence it states “compelled to use cars to travel back and forth.” Many folks choose to use cars instead of riding the PRT…is “compelled” the best word? jimrye_adelphia1(a)comcast.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Gmeindl" <fgmeindl(a)verizon.net> To: "Jonathan Rosenbaum" <freesource(a)cheat.org> Cc: "Bicycle Board" <bikeboard(a)cheat.org> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 2:28:26 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [Bikeboard] Campus Connector letter to TC Bicycle Board Members, I am still waiting to hear from • Marilyn, • Jim, • Alice and • Janel on the Campus Connector letter to the Traffic Commission. Attached is a revision of the letter that incorporates changes suggested by Derek, Chip, Jenny and Jonathan. If anybody has any problem with it, please let me know. Following is the status of responses to the original letter: Response date Comments 1. Donald Dickerson 11-Nov the letter sounds good to me 2. Paul Becker 11-Nov Concur. 3. Hugh Kierig 10-Nov 4. Jacob Brown 11-Nov Looking good, I'm in concurrence as well! 5. Elizabeth Shogren 20-Nov gunnar concurred for Betsy 6. Gunnar Shogren 20-Nov Betsy and I concur. 7. Frank Gmeindl 11-Nov 8. Marilyn Newcome 9. Jonathan Rosenbaum 23-Nov The letter delivers a strong argument... Change: "Two major stumbling blocks to seeing the Connector a reality have always been obtaining adequate right-of-way from private land owners and the actual cost of the construction." to "The major stumbling block to seeing the Connector a reality has always been obtaining adequate right-of-way from private land owners." 10. Don Spencer 19-Nov I think that it would be stronger to make this a joint effort with the Pedestrian Safety Board. They are fully on board with this project and even have it listed in their Pedestrian Safety Plan which has been approved by the Traffic Commission and will be going to Council soon. 11. Chet Parsons 11-Nov Very well done! 12. Jim Rye 13. Derek Springston 11-Nov Change Bicycle Board hope to Bicycle Board's hope 14. Chip Wamsley 11-Nov Change Bicycle Board hope to Bicycle Board's hope 15. Alice Vernon 16. Janel Bedard Frank Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles On 11/23/2009 12:04 AM, Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote: The letter delivers a strong argument, and I agree with Derek's improvement, however, there is one sentence that I am concerned about that may contribute to a leaky argument: Two major stumbling blocks to seeing the Connector a reality have always been obtaining adequate right-of-way from private land owners and the actual cost of the construction. If you are reading the sentence in this fashion, it works fine: Two major stumbling blocks to seeing the Connector a reality have always been obtaining adequate right-of-way from private land owners and obtaining the actual cost of the construction. About ten years ago when the City first visited this request the second argument become the reason for not pursuing the project. The costs were determined on the basis of a hand drawn map taking into consideration elevation and ADA requirements. Because there was never a formal study performed, the project was not given a fair opportunity. I would hate to see that happen again. At our CC meetings we targeted several methods that could provide funding, but none of that mattered in the absence of an actual route without any property barriers. Our purpose of this letter is not to make a vague statement establishing how costs are one of the major stumbling blocks of which we have no hard data about, but rather to ask the City to formally establish where the CC route can exist in regards to private properties that the CC would have to cross. So I would like to see the word "obtaining" added to the concerned sentence above or even better have the sentence reworded as below: The major stumbling block to seeing the Connector a reality has always been obtaining adequate right-of-way from private land owners. Finally, when considering what the real costs of the CC are, listen to what Bill Reger-Nash said in regards to the net gains it will have on human health: "The CC will have an unaccountable influence." -Jonathan Frank Gmeindl wrote: Bicycle Board Members, Thanks to Hugh for promptly writing subject letter. Thanks to Don D., Paul, Jake, Chet, Derek, Chip and Don S. for their concurrence or recommended improvements. As we agreed at the November meeting, I will deliver the letter to the Traffic Commission after everyone concurs. Following is a table that lists the responses. Derek's, Chip's and Don Spencer's comments can be addressed without BB discussion. In case it comes through illegible on your end, Betsy, gunnar, Marilyn, Jonathan, Jim, Alice, Janel, I'm waiting for your concurrence or comments. Member Response date Comments 1. Donald Dickerson 11-Nov the letter sounds good to me 2. Paul Becker 11-Nov Concur. 3. Hugh Kierig 10-Nov Created the letter 4. Jacob Brown 11-Nov Looking good, I'm in concurrence as well! 5. Elizabeth Shogren 6. Gunnar Shogren 7. Frank Gmeindl 11-Nov Concur. 8. Marilyn Newcome 9. Jonathan Rosenbaum 10. Don Spencer 19-Nov I think that it would be stronger to make this a joint effort with the Pedestrian Safety Board. They are fully on board with this project and even have it listed in their Pedestrian Safety Plan which has been approved by the Traffic Commission and will be going to Council soon. 11. Chet Parsons 11-Nov Very well done! 12. Jim Rye 13. Derek Springston 11-Nov Change Bicycle Board hope to Bicycle Board's hope 14. Chip Wamsley 11-Nov Change Bicycle Board hope to Bicycle Board's hope 15. Alice Vernon 16. Janel Bedard Frank Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles _______________________________________________ Bikeboard mailing list Bikeboard(a)cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard _______________________________________________ Bikeboard mailing list Bikeboard(a)cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard

2 1

Criteria for route classification...
by Derek Springston 22 Nov '09

22 Nov '09

Hey guys, Here is a list of the criteria that Chet and I have developed for the Bike Route classificationsIf you can think of anything else, let us know ASAP. Thanks... Speed Limit Slope Number of Lanes Road width Straightness Traffic Volume Traffic Capacity Road Condition Shoulder or no shoulder Intersections along route Sun & Visibility Scenery Distance to Hospital Accessibility (Level of Service - Federal Hwy Administration criteria (LOS)) Directness (LOS) Continuity (LOS) Attractiveness (LOS) Level of Conflict (LOS) Cost (COS) East of implementation (LOS) Truck Percentage Lighting ~Derek “Every time I see an adult on a bicycle I no longer despair for the future of the human race.” -H.G. Wells _________________________________________________________________ Windows 7: I wanted simpler, now it's simpler. I'm a rock star. http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?h=myidea?ocid=PID24…

1 0

[Fwd: Re: Bicycles on roadway shoulders]
by Frank Gmeindl 21 Nov '09

21 Nov '09

Bicycle Board Members, Thanks to Derek, gunnar, Greg Good, Chip Wamsley, Bill Reger-Nash and Don Spencer for helping me improve the draft message that I wrote on the preliminary WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian plan. Thanks also to Gary Rodosta for discussing graphics with me. Below is the message that I sent to Kim Broughton, BikeWV today. Her response: thanks Frank. I'm buried right now. Feel free to lead this effort. Hope all is well. Kim Frank /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Bicycles on roadway shoulders Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:08:44 -0500 From: Frank Gmeindl <fgmeindl(a)verizon.net> To: Kimberly Jo <kimberlyjoshi(a)gmail.com> References: <9F99D851A5A1AA42BC98EF491E731F8F31967E(a)WVOTMAIL04.executive.stateofwv.gov> <4AE740C8.8050400(a)verizon.net> <9F99D851A5A1AA42BC98EF491E731F8FD24DAE(a)WVOTMAIL04.executive.stateofwv.gov> <bf837ff30911030817j7f632cc2ya2297cd14213fc3b(a)mail.gmail.com> <4BB73E2202D8F743979C29AC6A94ECEC6EEEE5(a)WVOTMAIL02.executive.stateofwv.gov> Kim, What is BikeWV doing to prepare a response to the WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan? I think we should be working on one so we'll be ready when the plan is released. Even better if we could provide our input before it's released and when it may be more flexible. Following are some of my thoughts. The plan that we saw is consistent with Paul Maddox' statement at the April 2009 WV Cycling Symposium, "WV roads are too narrow and too winding for bicycles". It is also consistent with dialogs that I have had with WVDOH officials such as Ray Lewis that indicate that they do not recognize bicyclists' equal right to the roads. In response to the plan, we should advocate for paving shoulders. We should oppose striping shoulders as bike lanes. WE SHOULD VOCIFEROUSLY OPPOSE PROHIBITING BICYCLES FROM USING THE ROADWAY WHEN A BIKE LANE OR SIDE PATH IS PRESENT. The legislation change proposals contained in the plan's Appendix A, particularly 17C-11-5 on page 77 deny cyclists' right to the roadway. We should advocate for complete deletion of 17C-11-5. (For your convenience, I have cut and pasted at the end of this message, 17C-11-5 with the changes proposed in the plan.) Paving shoulders is a good idea. Expecting cyclists to ride on them is not such a good idea. Striping them as bike lanes is a bad idea. Requiring cyclists to ride on them and forbidding cyclists to ride on the roadway is a clear denial of cyclists' right to the roadway. *PAVING SHOULDERS IS A GOOD IDEA* Paving shoulders is a good idea because doing so reduces the cost of maintaining the roadway, keeps the roadway cleaner and provides an escape for cyclists or motorists who perceive that traveling on the roadway is unsafe. *EXPECTING CYCLISTS TO RIDE ON SHOULDERS IS NOT SUCH A GOOD IDEA* Expecting cyclists to ride on shoulders is not such a good idea because driving on shoulders is often less safe than driving on the roadway. Paved shoulders may be great for climbing a long steep hill beside a high speed narrow roadway that has no cross traffic but there are at least 4 reasons that expecting cyclists to ride on shoulders is not such a good idea: 1. *Debris *- Shoulders often collect debris such as gravel, glass, dead animals, construction materials and car parts that present a very significant crash hazard particularly on curvy high speed descents. I recently saw a statistic that something like 75% of automobile crashes are due to debris on the roadway. The WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan does not include any provision for keeping the shoulders clean. 2. *Dangerous descents* - The cross grade of shoulders is usually designed to channel water from the roadway rather than to provide sufficient centripetal force to hold a vehicle on the shoulder when traveling at speed. This is usually not a problem when traveling slowly up hill but especially on curvy descents, it can be quite dangerous particularly in wet or icy conditions. The plan includes no provision to reconstruct the shoulders to ensure sufficient traction for bicycles driving on the shoulders particularly around curves on downhills. 3. *Crashes at crossings* - Cycling on the shoulder puts cyclists where motorists don't look for traffic. This problem is particularly severe at crossings. How often have we heard a motorist exclaim after hitting a cyclist with his or her car, "I didn't even see him!"? *"Right hooks"* - When a motorist makes a right turn from a roadway into a driveway or a cross road, they look to the left for traffic, not to the right. If a bicyclist is on the shoulder to their right rather than in the travel lane, the motorist won't see them. "Right hooks" are one of the most common types of crashes between motor vehicles and bicyclists. *"Left hooks"* - When a motorist makes a left turn into a driveway or a cross road, they look for a break in on-coming traffic before making the left turn. If a bicyclist traveling on the shoulder is obscured from the motorist's view by vehicles on the roadway passing the bicyclist, the motorist can turn left immediately after a gap appears in the line of on-coming motor vehicles and into the the cyclist on the shoulder. "Left hooks" are also one of the most common types of crashes between motor vehicles and bicycles. *"Drive out" collisions* - The most common cause of crashes between motor vehicles and bicycles is the drive out from an intersection or drive way: failure to yield to the cyclist. One reason these occur is that the motorist doesn't see the bicyclist when they drive out from the intersection. The narrow profile of an on-coming bicycle makes it difficult to see and judge its speed. This problem is bad enough when cyclists are in the travel lane. It can be expected to be worse when the bicyclist is on the shoulder where the motorist is even less likely to be looking, especially when they're talking on the phone. The sight line from the motorist to the bicyclist when the bicyclist is far to the right or on the shoulder is often shorter or obscured by vegetation, parked cars, etc. The plan does not recognize these dangers and includes no designs for handling bicycles riding on the shoulders at traffic crossings. 4. *Dangerous merges* - Traveling on the shoulder and then merging from the shoulder to the travel lane, to go straight through an intersection or to make a left turn at an intersection is less safe than traveling in the through lane or merging from the through lane to the left side of the lane or to a left turn lane to make a left turn. The plan does not recognize these challenges and includes no designs for ensuring safe merging from the shoulder. *STRIPING SHOULDERS AS BIKE LANES IS A BAD IDEA* Striping shoulders as bike lanes is a bad idea for 3 reasons: 1. *Discourages cyclists from taking safest path* - Striping the shoulders as bike lanes will encourage bicyclists, particularly inexperienced cyclists, to drive on the bike lane when it may indeed be less safe than the roadway because of inadequate bike lane maintenance or unsafe bike lane construction as discussed above. The plan does not provide justification for striping the shoulders as bike lanes rather than just paving the shoulders and leaving them unmarked. 2. *Confuses motorists* - Striping the shoulders as bike lanes can be expected to confuse both motorists and bicyclists about where the bicyclist should be on the highway. Too many motorists and bicyclists already are unaware that the law gives bicyclists the same rights to the roadway as motorists. Few motorists and cyclists are aware that the safest position for the cyclist can be on the left side of the travel lane, for example, when making a left turn. Motorists can be expected to be less accommodating of bicycles merging left across the roadway from a bike lane than of bicycles merging left in the travel lane or from the travel lane. While the design directives in the plan specify: " Cars hitting bikes that make left turns from the right side of the roadway is also a common type of crash between motor vehicles and bicycles. At locations where the shoulder width becomes too narrow for use as bicycle lanes, signage will be installed reading "BICYCLE LANE ENDS MERGE WITH TRAFFIC", the plan does not recognize the turn movements that cyclists must be able to make and it provides no provision for making such turn movements safer from the bike lane than from a travel lane. It also provides no justification that merging from the bike lane could be safer than merging in or from the travel lane. 3. *Increases hostility towards road cyclists* - Striping shoulders as bike lanes can be expected to increase the attitude among the general public, motorists and even many bicyclists that bicyclists do not have a right to the road. Striping the shoulders as bike lanes can decrease the safety of cyclists who choose to drive on the roadway because motorists may believe that they are not required to exercise due care for cyclists when they believe that cyclists do not belong on the roadway. The plan does not recognize the problem of erroneous perception of cyclists' rights to the roadway. The plan does include laudable bicycle safety training but it is not clear that the training will cover cyclists' right to the road. *FORBIDDING CYCLISTS FROM DRIVING ON THE ROADWAY EXPLICITLY DENIES CYCLISTS' RIGHT TO THE ROAD* The design directives in the plan state: "Bicycles are required to use marked bicycle lane if present." The proposed 17C-11-5c states: "Whenever a paved path has been constructed and designated for bicycles adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway". *If bike lanes were really safer, cyclists would use them without being forced* - Forbidding cyclists from driving on the roadway when a bike lane and side path exists explicitly denies bicyclists' right to the roadway. Forcing cyclists to drive on bike lanes and bike paths indicates that even the WVDOH doesn't believe that they are safer than cycling on the roadway. Requiring cyclists to drive on bike lanes and bike paths and prohibiting cyclists from driving on the roadway reveals that getting cyclists off the road is a higher WVDOH priority than cyclist safety. My understanding is that all states put language such as that in 17C-11-2 that grants cyclists equal rights to the roadway into their state laws in the early 1900's but language such as that in 17C-11-5 did not appear until after World War II when our country became decidedly auto-centric. While other states are recognizing the discrimination of Far to the Right (FTR), Mandatory Bike Lane (MBL), Mandatory Shoulder Use (MSU) and Mandatory Side Path (MSP) requirements and repealing these discriminatory articles from their laws, WV is heading toward becoming the only state in the union with all 4. The attached table shows the current status of the 50 states with respect to these laws. (My thanks to fellow LCI Dan Gutierrez for creating that file.) This is probably enough for now. We should also prepare responses to other aspects of the plan. For example, the plan needs to accommodate bicycling in our state's cities. Accommodating bicycles in our cities presents the greatest opportunities for alleviating traffic congestion, reducing obesity and generally improving the quality of life as well as improving the character of our cities. We are aware that approximately half of all trips are within 3-5 miles: a distance that most people could easily travel by bicycle if encouraged and enabled by our transportation system. Many of our cities' key routes are controlled by the WVDOH. If the WVDOH developed the bicycle plan in collaboration with knowledgeable representatives from each of our cities, our plan could capture these opportunities as well as make WV a bicycle friendly state. Frank Gmeindl LCI #1703 /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/ *§17C-11-5. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths. *(as contained in draft WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan)* * (a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction. _except; when overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction, when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway, when riding in the right turn only lane, or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane. _ (b) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. _Persons riding two abreast, where allowed, shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and shall ride within a single lane. _ (c) Whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided _paved path has been constructed and designated for bicycles _adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway. _(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting persons from riding bicycles on or along shoulders of a street or highway._ On 11/4/2009 8:47 AM, Robinson, Bill C wrote: > > *Kim -- * > > * * > > *Regretfully, I would like to ask that you not distribute the draft > plan you received. This version is only the second draft; it has > never left our Division; it has never been seen by the top-level > managers in the WVDOH (such as the Secretary/Commissioner or the State > Highway Engineer); it really has no standing. It is what I've told > you that it is: simply a draft "starting point". We've already done > one extensive re-write; we expect probably at least one more before > submittal to higher level management. We have started with everything > we think may be possible for the WVDOH to achieve, but obviously > without management "buy-in" we can't promise anything. To release > this draft plan (which was meant to only be reviewed internally in the > WVDOH) may jeopardize or complicate the process; if WVDOH management > is in disagreement or apprehensive about any of the draft > recommendations, public comment at this point may erode our ability to > sway people internally on what might be perceived (again, internally) > as questionable directions for the WVDOH. In addition, in the > interest of fairness to the citizens, we don't want to "piecemeal" > drafts out to people without all interested parties having a chance to > view it at the same time.* > > * * > > *As in our earlier conversations, when we have a version of this plan > that the WVDOH management is comfortable with, the WVDOH will have a > public comment period and will welcome input from the bicycle > community and all the interested citizens, but we're not at that point > right now and receiving comments on a "rough" draft document that may > change significantly won't be helpful to the WVDOH or a good use of > the time and energy of the bicycle community at this point. So > please, just take a look at the draft, see it as an indicator of the > larger picture of what the WVDOH is trying to do and I'll contact you > when we are ready for public comment.* > > * * > > *Bill* > > *William C. Robinson*** > > *State Trail Coordinator* > > *Progam Manager, Recreational Trails Program * > > *WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator* > > *Chairman, West Virginia Recreational Trails Advisory Board* > > * * > > *West Virginia Department of Transportation* > > *Division of Highways* > > *Program Planning and Administration Division* > > *1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East* > > *Building 5, Room 863* > > *Charleston, West Virginia 25305-0430* > > *(304)558-9615 Fax -- (304)558-3783* > > *bill.c.robinson(a)wv.gov <mailto:bill.c.robinson@wv.gov>* > > > > *_"_**The life of the artist is, in relation to his work, stern and > lonely. He has labored hard,* > > *often amid depravation, to perfect his skill. He has turned aside > from quick success in* > > *order to strip his vision of everything secondary or cheapening. His > working life is* > > *marked by intense application and intense discipline." - John F. > Kennedy, 1962 * > > * * > > * * > > * * > > * * > > *From:* Kimberly Jo [mailto:kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:18 AM > *To:* Robinson, Bill C > *Subject:* Fwd: Bicycles on roadway shoulders > > > > What's up Bill? Can I distribute this to our list. > Thanks! > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Stanevich, Ron L* <Ron.L.Stanevich(a)wv.gov > <mailto:Ron.L.Stanevich@wv.gov>> > Date: Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:53 AM > Subject: RE: Bicycles on roadway shoulders > To: Frank Gmeindl <fgmeindl(a)verizon.net <mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net>> > Cc: Kim Broughton <kimberlyjoshi(a)gmail.com > <mailto:kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com>> > > Frank / Kim > > > > Thanks for your responses last week. > > > > I've attached a draft copy of the WVDOH's Bicycle / Ped Plan (note, I > don't think that this is the actual title, but because this is a draft > copy, some of the titles are missing). > > > > In this plan are several changes to current WVDOH Policies and changes > that the DOH intends to make to the WV Code in the very near future. > Please note the DOH is only making changes that we feel affect its > operations and issues. What I'm told that has been the direction > given from our management. > > > > Nevertheless I've been "befriended" some of the employees in Planning > and they've given me these draft copies to review. I asked if I could > circulate them to friends for comments. They said they had no problem > with that. So that's what I'm doing. > > > > If you have comments on any of these proposals. Please feel free to > submit them to me as soon as possible. I have no clue as to when the > Division plans to submit this, or what the rest of the review process > is like or consists of. Again, it's not my section. But the sooner > you can get me comments, I will forward them on to the appropriate > individuals. > > > > Frank... concerning our correspondence last week about the shoulder > riding, the division has proposed a change to 17C-11-5 by adding a > section (d) that states that /Nothing in this Chapter shall be > construed as prohibiting persons from riding bicycles on or along the > shoulders or a street or highway/. > > > > Anyhow, I thought I would circulate these proposals for a wider > reviewing audience. I did say that I would try to get comments back > to them shortly and they would look at them. Again this is just a > draft proposal of WVDOH Policies, and changes to the State Code that > deal with DOH issues in regards to Pedestrians and Bicycles. > > > > Please feel free to review circulate and comment back to me if you > wish, and I'll try to make sure they get to the appropriate personnel. > > > > > > /Ron Stanevich, PE/ > > /Specifications Engineer/ > > /West Virginia Division Of Highways/ > > /Contract Administration/ > > /1900 Kanawha Blvd East/ > > /Bldg 5, RM 722/ > > /304.558.9556/ > > *From:* Frank Gmeindl [mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net > <mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net>] > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:50 PM > *To:* Stanevich, Ron L > *Cc:* Kimberly Jo > *Subject:* Re: Bicycles on roadway shoulders > > > > Ron, > > Thanks for contacting me. I hope the class is stimulating and > informative. Wish I were there with you! I have a lot to learn:) > > The WV code is unclear whether bicyclists are permitted to drive their > bicycles on shoulders. Since the code doesn't explicitly address > bicycling on shoulders, one could argue that it is permitted. > However, a problem arises when a cyclist is injured while bicycling on > the shoulder or when a bicyclist while bicycling on the shoulder, > injures someone. The WV code only says that bicyclists have the same > rights and duties as motorists when they're on the roadway. > > WV code 17C-1-37 explicitly excludes the shoulder from the definition > of "Roadway". Specifically, 17C-1-37 says, ""Roadway" means that > portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for > vehicular travel, *exclusive of the berm or shoulder*." That is, > according to WV code, the shoulder is not part of the roadway. > > Why is that important? It's important because WV code 17C-11-2 only > gives cyclists equal right to motorists when the bicyclist is > bicycling on the roadway. Explicitly, 17C-11-2 says, "Every person > riding a bicycle *upon a roadway* shall be granted all of the rights > and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of > a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this > article and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by > their nature can have no application." > > I am surprised that the NHI instructor believes that WV's State Code > falls back on the Uniform Vehicle Code because the WVDOH told me > otherwise. Here's a quote from a December 17 e-mail from Ray Lewis, > WVDOT Staff Engineer - Traffic Research and Special Projects to Bill > Robinson, WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator > > "The UVC is a model code, like many other model codes. There is no > requirement that West Virginia adopt it, or conform to it. The WV > Code language governs in all cases. We were able for several years to > have bills introduced in the Legislature to have the WV CODE brought > into conformity with the UVC; our efforts repeatedly failed." > > Kim Broughton was copied on that e-mail. > > The reason this came up is that Bill, Ray and I were discussing > 17C-11-5 that says, "Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway > shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as > practicable...". I cited the UVC that clarifies "as near to the > right as practicable" and above was Mr. Lewis' response. > > I hope this answers your question. Please let me know how it turns out. > > Frank Gmeindl > League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructor #1703 > Chairman, Morgantown Municipal Bicycle Board > > On 10/27/2009 1:58 PM, Stanevich, Ron L wrote: > > Mr. Gmeindle > > I'm currently in a NHI bicycle & pedestrian facilities class. The > instructors here from FHWA feel that WV's State Code falls back on the > Universal Vehicle Code when it comes to the subject issue. > > I remember at this past summer's Symposium, it was discussed that > bicycles were not allowed on roadway shoulders. > > I was trying to find where this issue is addressed in state code, and > Kim Broughton passed me along to you. > > Thanks > > Ron Stanevich > WVDOH > > Message sent from my Blackberry! > > > > > -- > Kimberly Broughton > Creative Crosswalks, LLC > kimberlyjoshi(a)gmail.com <mailto:kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com> > 304.483.1685 >

3 3

Campus Connector - SGA Meeting
by Jacob Brown 18 Nov '09

18 Nov '09

Ryan Post and I attended tonight's SGA meeting to give a brief description/reminder about the campus connector to support the SGA's resolution on the matter. Response to our description and the resolution that was read was very good. There were quite a few comments and excitement from the board and the gallery in support of the matter. Taylor Richmond of SGA is the member backing the resolution and he seemed very positive towards it, and mentioned some of the history of the connector that included the Bike Board's work with Tyler Pearson. Richmond also mentioned that another positive with the campus connector would be (assuming it was built pretty soon) good to use during the closed rail trail period. Mostly people just made comments about how great of an idea they thought it was. The only actual questions we received were in regards to cost and funding options, and whether or not the path would be lit and contain blue emergency points. That, and when we mentioned the path could look to be paved, concrete, or simply made with pea-gravel, one member inquired as to how someone could ride their bike on a gravel surface.... So, all in all the response to the idea and resolution was great. SGA will vote to support the resolution at their meeting next week. I told Jon Bond that if they had any further questions, to contact me. A DA rep also contacted Ryan and I and called Ryan to get some information and sounds like there will be an article in the DA soon about the connector as well. I also kept a copy of the resolution, that I can make sure gets to the next BB meeting. - Jake -- Jacob Brown 434.660.3173 http://justafuntime.blogspot.com/

2 1

Re: [Bikeboard] Campus Connector
by Jacob Brown 18 Nov '09

18 Nov '09

All, Thanks so much for the information, links, and help. Sorry it was somewhat last minute, but Ryan and I wanted to get on the SGA agenda for this week, because SGA wanted it to all be part of this semesters issues. The information you sent is great. Ryan and I met with Tyler last night and went over the main points of the CC that we need to discuss with SGA. I'm going to go over the pictures and minutes material again here this afternoon and we will head down to the meeting tonight. I'll let you all know what they have to say about it and what sort of questions they have. Thanks, Jake On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:55 AM, director <director(a)positivespin.org> wrote: > > Jenny, et al, > I've just returned from a training weekend on organizing grass roots > campaigns and it so happens that I used this issue (the campus connector) as > my example so I've got a process plan for getting public support behind this > issue. As a Non-Governmental organization I think that Positive Spin could > be the right organization to handle such a campaign in support of the Bike > Board, City, WVU and students. We can organize citizen volunteers and other > resources quickly and effectively. Let me know what you think. I'd really > like to be a help on this issue. > > Thanks, > Nick Hein > > > > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > From: Jennifer Selin <jselin(a)hotmail.com> > Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:14:52 -0500 > > > > >All: > > > >I would emphasize the water tower and the greenhouse as the destinations > of the trail. This gives the neighborhood and the president's house a > little buffer. > > > >I would be glad to walk this with anyone who is interested. We walked it > with Greg good last year. > > > >Jenny > > > >Jenny Selin > >1224 Fairlawns > >Morgantown, WV 26505 > >USA > > > >Phone:(304-598-9650) > >jselin(a)hotmail.com > > > > > > > >> From: gshogren(a)gmail.com > >> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:06:29 -0500 > >> To: ty.pearson(a)gmail.com > >> CC: jbond3(a)mix.wvu.edu; rpostwvu(a)gmail.com; Bikeboard(a)cheat.org > >> Subject: Re: [Bikeboard] Campus Connector > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Tyler Pearson <ty.pearson(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> What the crap? > >> I thought you had left. > >> You back? And forth? > >> Life good? > >> > >> > Jake, > >> > > >> > I'm literally working on the presentation right now. I just met with > >> > Jon about it, and will be meeting with Ryan tonight about the details. > >> > The main goal for the meeting tomorrow should be explaining why the > >> > campus connector is important to students, so I will be going over the > >> > main talking points tonight. A resolution will also be sponsored by a > >> > governor in support of the connector, and the SGA BOG will vote on it > >> > the week after. > >> > > >> > I also just talked to a city reporter with the Daily Anthenaeum, and > >> > she wants to do a more in depth separate article on it before the vote > >> > next week. This can go over more of the nitty gritty details. > >> > >> Does the student body not know of this? > >> Or was it been an on-again off-again thing? > >> > >> > > >> > Tyler > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Jacob Brown <fdjakeb(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> Bike Board Members, > >> >> > >> >> It has been requested that I gather some information regarding the > campus > >> >> connector so that Ryan Post and I can present this information to the > SGA at > >> >> an upcoming meeting to bring the matter up again to the attention of > the > >> >> SGA. > >> >> > >> >> Can someone who knows the details of the Campus Connector please > email me or > >> >> Ryan Post this information. I know the basics of the idea that we > have > >> >> discussed in the meetings, but I wanted to get input from those who > have > >> >> worked on it extensively. > >> >> > >> >> Thanks, > >> >> > >> >> Jacob Brown > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Ryan Post <rpostwvu(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> I’m still waiting on any information from Tyler or the bike board. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> From: Jonathan Bond [mailto:jbond3@mix.wvu.edu] > >> >>> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 11:53 AM > >> >>> To: Ryan Post > >> >>> Subject: RE: Campus Connector > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Hey Ryan, > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> I will see you Wednesday at the sga meeting. You can keep it very > brief > >> >>> regarding the campus connector. If you could just explain the > importance of > >> >>> it, I think it would be nice to get the image back out there to the > new > >> >>> president as well as the formation of ideas for the fall. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Sincerely, > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Jon > >> >>> > >> >>> 304-639-2341 > >> >>> > >> >>> On 11/13/09, Ryan Post <rpostwvu(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> I got this link today from the MD racing forum although partially > >> >>> unrelated, > >> >>> > >> >>> http://www.streetfilms.org/bike-lanes-in-the-big-apple/#more-16311shows > >> >>> how NYC implemented 3 classes of bike lanes. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Just to clarify, I have time to do the presentation if I’m given the > >> >>> information. I’ve been to some SGA meetings before, and I found > that > >> >>> powerpoints are awkward, and I’d prefer to just speak, and possibly > hand out > >> >>> something only if needed. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> As far as I’m aware, this issue is only dealing with the path from > 8th and > >> >>> Grant up to either the Presidents House or Engineering. Any > references to > >> >>> trail steepness I would prefer to reference another street, such as > >> >>> currently this hill is “as steep as the hill in front of Eisland > Hall”, or > >> >>> “this hill will be no steeper than Stewart Street in front of Life > >> >>> Sciences”. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> That just seems easier and less boring than 100% of speeches that > I’ve > >> >>> heard at SGA meetings that had visual aids. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Ryan > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> From: Frank Gmeindl [mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net] > >> >>> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 2:02 PM > >> >>> To: Jacob Brown > >> >>> Cc: Jonathan Bond; Ryan Post > >> >>> Subject: Re: Campus Connector > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Jonathan R., Greg Good, Jenny Selin > >> >>> > >> >>> Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of > vehicles > >> >>> > >> >>> Sent from my iPhone > >> >>> > >> >>> On Nov 13, 2009, at 12:02 PM, Jacob Brown <fdjakeb(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Frank and Jon, > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> I spoke with Ryan Post and he is interested in helping with talking > to SGA > >> >>> about the campus connector. He was saying that if we can get the > other BB > >> >>> members that know more about the connector to get us the information > by > >> >>> Monday, we could get something together for Wednesday. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Otherwise, Ryan would be available to make the SGA meeting on the > 2nd of > >> >>> December, if my other date of the 9th would be too late. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Who do we need to talk to to get more detailed info to the SGA? > Jonathan > >> >>> R. and ??? > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> - Jake > >> >>> > >> >>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Jacob Brown <fdjakeb(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Jon, > >> >>> > >> >>> I won't have the time to gather the information by next weeks > meeting. I'm > >> >>> pretty busy next week with trying to get my final submissions of my > thesis > >> >>> in. But once next week is over, I'll have time to meet with the BB > members > >> >>> to get what I would need to present to you. > >> >>> > >> >>> The only other issue is the meeting after Thanksgiving, I will be > out of > >> >>> town that week as well. What about the 9th of December, will SGA be > meeting > >> >>> that Wednesday? I know it is pretty late in the semester, but it > would be > >> >>> the only meeting I could make. > >> >>> > >> >>> What do you think. > >> >>> > >> >>> - Jake > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Jonathan Bond <jbond3(a)mix.wvu.edu> > wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Jake, > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> If you could gather some information about the history of the campus > >> >>> connector, and just come and speak to SGA during one of our > meetings, I will > >> >>> put you on our agenda. It does not have to be very long, just > enough to > >> >>> spur conversation, and we will find someone to right a resolution on > your > >> >>> (and the student's) behalf. Upon writing this, it should pick up > some > >> >>> publicity which would help push the issue even further. If you have > any > >> >>> questions, feel free to contact me. I would love to get you on the > agenda > >> >>> before thanksgiving (this meeting or the meeting after thanksgiving > would be > >> >>> fine) to get more done THIS SEMESTER. Just let me know. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Sincerely, > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Jon > >> >>> > >> >>> On 11/12/09, Jacob Brown <fdjakeb(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Hmm, I could probably get on board with that. I know the general > idea of > >> >>> the campus connector, but I do not really know all of the past > details. > >> >>> > >> >>> Are we talking like a slideshow presentation of a couple slides to > present > >> >>> to the SGA. We will have to look at the meeting schedule and see > which one > >> >>> we need to hit. Looks like they are Wednesday Nights at 7:30 in the > >> >>> Rhododendron room. > >> >>> > >> >>> I dont imagine we have time to get ready for next week, and the > following > >> >>> week is before Thanksgiving break, so they may forego the meeting > then. The > >> >>> 2nd of December I have to be out of town (missing the bike board > meeting > >> >>> that week as well) - however, the meeting of the 9th of December > would work. > >> >>> I am not sure when they stop having meetings for winter break, but > that > >> >>> would give us time to prepare something, and then present it to them > that > >> >>> night. > >> >>> > >> >>> As an aside, not that this really matters, but my student status > will also > >> >>> come to an end at the end of the semester as well. But, if we did it > on the > >> >>> 9th, then I would still be a student and we would have time to > prepare > >> >>> something. > >> >>> > >> >>> Thoughts? > >> >>> > >> >>> - Jake > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> I imagine I would want at least one of the other more knowledgable > campus > >> >>> connector bike board counterparts involved. > >> >>> > >> >>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Frank Gmeindl < > fgmeindl(a)verizon.net> > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Tyler, > >> >>> > >> >>> Good to hear from you! I hope your career is progressing famously:) > >> >>> > >> >>> I'm in total agreement with your recommendation. By copy of this > message, > >> >>> I ask Jake if he's willing to present to the SGA. There is at least > 1 other > >> >>> Bicycle Board member and a City Counselor that could support him if > he > >> >>> needed it. (I don't mention their names here because I'd like to > discuss > >> >>> with Jake first and then them.) > >> >>> > >> >>> Frank > >> >>> Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of > vehicles > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> On 11/12/2009 11:56 AM, Tyler Pearson wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Hi Frank, > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> I saw the email yesterday about the campus connector and just wanted > >> >>> > >> >>> to let you know that I forwarded the email over to Jon Bond. He is > >> >>> > >> >>> the Student Health Chair of WVU Student Government and has brought > up > >> >>> > >> >>> the campus connector to President Clements on various occasions to > try > >> >>> > >> >>> and garner support from the WVU side. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Jon brought up the idea of having a presentation by someone on the > >> >>> > >> >>> Bike Board about the campus connector at a SGA meeting. This would > >> >>> > >> >>> help give the idea publicity again, and the SGA would also be able > to > >> >>> > >> >>> pass a resolution of support, helping press it forward as a student > >> >>> > >> >>> issue. Maybe Jake would be able to do this? > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Hope all is well. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Tyler > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> ty.pearson(a)gmail.com > >> >>> > >> >>> 703.727.5490 > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> -- > >> >>> Jacob Brown > >> >>> 434.660.3173 > >> >>> > >> >>> http://justafuntime.blogspot.com/ > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> -- > >> >>> Jacob Brown > >> >>> 434.660.3173 > >> >>> > >> >>> http://justafuntime.blogspot.com/ > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> -- > >> >>> Jacob Brown > >> >>> 434.660.3173 > >> >>> > >> >>> http://justafuntime.blogspot.com/ > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Jacob Brown > >> >> 434.660.3173 > >> >> > >> >> http://justafuntime.blogspot.com/ > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> Bikeboard mailing list > >> >> Bikeboard(a)cheat.org > >> >> http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard > >> >> > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Bikeboard mailing list > >> > Bikeboard(a)cheat.org > >> > http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard > >> > > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Bikeboard mailing list > >> Bikeboard(a)cheat.org > >> http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >Windows 7: I wanted simpler, now it's simpler. I'm a rock star. > > > http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?h=myidea?ocid=PID24… > > > > > > > > -- > Nick Hein LCI# 1705 > Director, Positive Spin > 2567 Univ Ave Ste 6000L > Morgantown, WV > ph 304-276-0213 > -- > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikeboard mailing list > Bikeboard(a)cheat.org > http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard > -- Jacob Brown 434.660.3173 http://justafuntime.blogspot.com/

1 0

Re: [Bikeboard] Campus Connector
by Jacob Brown 18 Nov '09

18 Nov '09

Bike Board Members, It has been requested that I gather some information regarding the campus connector so that Ryan Post and I can present this information to the SGA at an upcoming meeting to bring the matter up again to the attention of the SGA. Can someone who knows the details of the Campus Connector please email me or Ryan Post this information. I know the basics of the idea that we have discussed in the meetings, but I wanted to get input from those who have worked on it extensively. Thanks, Jacob Brown On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Ryan Post <rpostwvu(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I’m still waiting on any information from Tyler or the bike board. > > > > *From:* Jonathan Bond [mailto:jbond3@mix.wvu.edu] > *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 11:53 AM > *To:* Ryan Post > *Subject:* RE: Campus Connector > > > > Hey Ryan, > > > > I will see you Wednesday at the sga meeting. You can keep it very brief > regarding the campus connector. If you could just explain the importance of > it, I think it would be nice to get the image back out there to the new > president as well as the formation of ideas for the fall. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Jon > > 304-639-2341 > > On 11/13/09, *Ryan Post *<rpostwvu(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I got this link today from the MD racing forum although partially > unrelated, > > http://www.streetfilms.org/bike-lanes-in-the-big-apple/#more-16311 shows > how NYC implemented 3 classes of bike lanes. > > > > Just to clarify, I have time to do the presentation if I’m given the > information. I’ve been to some SGA meetings before, and I found that > powerpoints are awkward, and I’d prefer to just speak, and possibly hand out > something only if needed. > > > > As far as I’m aware, this issue is only dealing with the path from 8th and > Grant up to either the Presidents House or Engineering. Any references to > trail steepness I would prefer to reference another street, such as > currently this hill is “as steep as the hill in front of Eisland Hall”, or > “this hill will be no steeper than Stewart Street in front of Life > Sciences”. > > > > That just seems easier and less boring than 100% of speeches that I’ve > heard at SGA meetings that had visual aids. > > > > Ryan > > > > *From:* Frank Gmeindl [mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net] > *Sent:* Friday, November 13, 2009 2:02 PM > *To:* Jacob Brown > *Cc:* Jonathan Bond; Ryan Post > *Subject:* Re: Campus Connector > > > > Jonathan R., Greg Good, Jenny Selin > > Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Nov 13, 2009, at 12:02 PM, Jacob Brown <fdjakeb(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Frank and Jon, > > > > I spoke with Ryan Post and he is interested in helping with talking to SGA > about the campus connector. He was saying that if we can get the other BB > members that know more about the connector to get us the information by > Monday, we could get something together for Wednesday. > > > > Otherwise, Ryan would be available to make the SGA meeting on the 2nd of > December, if my other date of the 9th would be too late. > > > > Who do we need to talk to to get more detailed info to the SGA? Jonathan R. > and ??? > > > > - Jake > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Jacob Brown <fdjakeb(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Jon, > > I won't have the time to gather the information by next weeks meeting. I'm > pretty busy next week with trying to get my final submissions of my thesis > in. But once next week is over, I'll have time to meet with the BB members > to get what I would need to present to you. > > The only other issue is the meeting after Thanksgiving, I will be out of > town that week as well. What about the 9th of December, will SGA be meeting > that Wednesday? I know it is pretty late in the semester, but it would be > the only meeting I could make. > > What do you think. > > - Jake > > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Jonathan Bond <jbond3(a)mix.wvu.edu> wrote: > > Jake, > > > > If you could gather some information about the history of the campus > connector, and just come and speak to SGA during one of our meetings, I will > put you on our agenda. It does not have to be very long, just enough to > spur conversation, and we will find someone to right a resolution on your > (and the student's) behalf. Upon writing this, it should pick up some > publicity which would help push the issue even further. If you have any > questions, feel free to contact me. I would love to get you on the agenda > before thanksgiving (this meeting or the meeting after thanksgiving would be > fine) to get more done THIS SEMESTER. Just let me know. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Jon > > On 11/12/09, *Jacob Brown *<fdjakeb(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hmm, I could probably get on board with that. I know the general idea of > the campus connector, but I do not really know all of the past details. > > Are we talking like a slideshow presentation of a couple slides to present > to the SGA. We will have to look at the meeting schedule and see which one > we need to hit. Looks like they are Wednesday Nights at 7:30 in the > Rhododendron room. > > I dont imagine we have time to get ready for next week, and the following > week is before Thanksgiving break, so they may forego the meeting then. The > 2nd of December I have to be out of town (missing the bike board meeting > that week as well) - however, the meeting of the 9th of December would work. > I am not sure when they stop having meetings for winter break, but that > would give us time to prepare something, and then present it to them that > night. > > As an aside, not that this really matters, but my student status will also > come to an end at the end of the semester as well. But, if we did it on the > 9th, then I would still be a student and we would have time to prepare > something. > > Thoughts? > > - Jake > > > > I imagine I would want at least one of the other more knowledgable campus > connector bike board counterparts involved. > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Frank Gmeindl <fgmeindl(a)verizon.net> > wrote: > > Tyler, > > Good to hear from you! I hope your career is progressing famously:) > > I'm in total agreement with your recommendation. By copy of this message, > I ask Jake if he's willing to present to the SGA. There is at least 1 other > Bicycle Board member and a City Counselor that could support him if he > needed it. (I don't mention their names here because I'd like to discuss > with Jake first and then them.) > > Frank > *Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles* > > > > > > On 11/12/2009 11:56 AM, Tyler Pearson wrote: > > Hi Frank, > > > > I saw the email yesterday about the campus connector and just wanted > > to let you know that I forwarded the email over to Jon Bond. He is > > the Student Health Chair of WVU Student Government and has brought up > > the campus connector to President Clements on various occasions to try > > and garner support from the WVU side. > > > > Jon brought up the idea of having a presentation by someone on the > > Bike Board about the campus connector at a SGA meeting. This would > > help give the idea publicity again, and the SGA would also be able to > > pass a resolution of support, helping press it forward as a student > > issue. Maybe Jake would be able to do this? > > > > Hope all is well. > > > > Tyler > > > > ty.pearson(a)gmail.com > > 703.727.5490 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Jacob Brown > 434.660.3173 > > http://justafuntime.blogspot.com/ > > > > > -- > Jacob Brown > 434.660.3173 > > http://justafuntime.blogspot.com/ > > > > > -- > Jacob Brown > 434.660.3173 > > http://justafuntime.blogspot.com/ > > -- Jacob Brown 434.660.3173 http://justafuntime.blogspot.com/

5 4

FWD: New Blumenauer Bill Would Expand Safe Routes to School to HighSchools
by director 13 Nov '09

13 Nov '09

Good morning, I received this good news this morning and thought I should pass it along. Please write your lawmakers and encourage them to support this legislation. Nick ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Deb Hubsmith <deb(a)saferoutespartnership.org> Reply-To: deb(a)saferoutespartnership.org Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:00:19 -0500 (EST) SRTS National Partnership logo [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102824457937&s=2741&e=001VWkAexWL1_oL5Mhin5DF6OV-…] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ New Blumenauer Bill Would Expand Safe Routes to School to High Schools November 13, 2009 Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) has just introduced H.R. 4021, the Safe Routes to High Schools Act, to make high schools eligible for federal Safe Routes to School funding. The current federal Safe Routes to School program created in 2005 through SAFETEA-LU is making it safer for more children to walk and bicycle to school all across the country. But, the current program is limited to elementary and middle schools (grades K-8). Rep. Blumenauer was joined in introducing H.R. 4021 by a bipartisan group of nine other members of the House: Reps. Bono Mack (R-CA), Capps (D-CA), Cassidy (R-LA), Connolly (D-VA), Filner (D-CA), Holt (D-NJ), Schwartz (D-PA), Welch (D-VT), and Wu (D-OR). High school students are an important audience for Safe Routes to School for a number of reasons: * Increasing walking and bicycling to and from school can increase physical activity for adolescents, which is particularly important since adolescents average significantly fewer minutes of physical activity than younger children, and obesity rates for young people ages 12 to 19 have tripled in the past fifteen years. * Making it safer for more students to walk and bicycle to and from high school helps reinforce healthy and green transportation habits that can extend into college and adulthood. * Educating high school students about pedestrian and bicycle safety can help them be more alert to these dangers both as they walk and bike, and as they learn to drive. The Safe Routes to School National Partnership is also supporting the changes that Chairman Oberstar (D-MN) proposed in June 2009 for Safe Routes to School in the draft Surface Transportation Authorization Act [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102824457937&s=2741&e=001VWkAexWL1_qX2im2b1XwmzuJ…] (STAA). Chairman Oberstar's provisions would reduce the regulatory burden of implementing Safe Routes to School grants; strengthen data collection and evaluation; move Safe Routes to School under the authority of the new Office of Livability; and make some technical changes to strengthen the program. Neither the Surface Transportation Authorization Act nor the Blumenauer bill discuss funding levels, only policy and program eligibility. What you can do: We encourage Safe Routes to School supporters to e-mail your House members [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102824457937&s=2741&e=001VWkAexWL1_pxEA-Q3br-1xgE…] with the following message: I support the federal Safe Routes to School program because it is making it safer for more kids to walk and bicycle to and from school-improving health and safety. (Insert a sentence or two about your local Safe Routes to School efforts. If you have a high school that needs Safe Routes to School funding, please add that too.) I hope you will support the Safe Routes to School program in two ways: * Let Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica know that you support the provisions in the Surface Transportation Authorization Act that will strengthen Safe Routes to School; * And, please consider cosponsoring Rep. Blumenauer's H.R. 4021 to allow high schools to apply for Safe Routes to School funding.Thank you for your consideration, and I hope to hear back from you on this matter. * * * The Safe Routes to School National Partnership will continue to work with Congress to strengthen and expand the federal Safe Routes to School program. We thank Reps. Oberstar and Blumenauer for their leadership on Safe Routes to School. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Forward email http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?m=1100380121653&ea=director@posit… This email was sent to director(a)positivespin.org by deb(a)saferoutespartnership.org. Update Profile/Email Address http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?v=001JkPYvl9GdBxNH5I1lra7pqiG5gADO… Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM) http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?v=001JkPYvl9GdBxNH5I1lra7pqiG5gADO… Privacy Policy: http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp Email Marketing by Constant Contact(R) www.constantcontact.com Bikes Belong Coalition | P.O. Box 2359 | Boulder | CO | 80306 -- Nick Hein LCI# 1705 Director, Positive Spin 2567 Univ Ave Ste 6000L Morgantown, WV ph 304-276-0213 --

1 0

Traffic Commission - Bike Board site...
by Derek Springston 12 Nov '09

12 Nov '09

Hey guys, I noticed that the Meeting Minutes haven't been updated on the website since March 2008 and a few of the document archives are a little bit outdated as far as what we're currently working on. Would it be a good idea to update these? What is that process and who takes care of it? Thanks, ~Derek “Every time I see an adult on a bicycle I no longer despair for the future of the human race.” -H.G. Wells _________________________________________________________________ Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MFESRP&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT…

1 0

Re: [Bikeboard] Campus Connector letter to TC
by Chip Wamsley 11 Nov '09

11 Nov '09

---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Frank Gmeindl <fgmeindl(a)verizon.net> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:57:38 -0500 Frank, Ditto to Derek's comment. Chip >Bicycle Board Members, > >Please reply with your concurrence with the attached letter from the BB >to the TC on the Campus Connector. This was an action item from our >meeting last week. > >If you have any suggested changes, please reply-all so we all can see >the changes you propose. > >I will present the letter to the TC when we have concurrence from all >members. > >Thanks to Hugh for creating the first draft! :-) > >Frank >/Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/ > > >

2 1

[Fwd: RE: Bicycles on roadway shoulders]
by Frank Gmeindl 11 Nov '09

11 Nov '09

Bicycle Board Members, I need help editing this to maximize the probability that BikeWV and WVDOH will read it, understand it and act on it. The Word file attached contains the text so you can use Track Changes and Comments. At the last BB meeting, we ran out of time before we could discuss the nascent WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan. I sent you all the draft plan on 11/3, Subject: Bicycles on roadway shoulders. I don't know when the plan will be released but I think if we wait until it is released to get our act together for a response, we'll be too late. The draft message below is addressed to Kim Broughton. I think she's acting as the leader of BikeWV and sees herself as representative of all WV cyclists. If you're willing to edit the message, please reply all. That way we'll all know who's working on it and can coordinate. If you look at the handouts that I provided at last week's BB meeting, you'll see some PowerPoint slides. These slides illustrate some of the points that I try to make in the message below. I sorely need help creating a set of visuals that illustrate all the points I'm trying to make in the message. Please, please if anybody has expertise in making such graphics or could just teach me how to make such things, help me however you can. Frank /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles /********************************************* Kim, What is BikeWV doing to prepare a response to the WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan? I think we should be working on one so we'll be ready when the plan is released. Following are some of my thoughts. The plan is consistent with Paul Maddox' statement at the April 2009 WV Cycling Symposium, "WV roads are too narrow and too winding for bicycles". It is also consistent with dialogs that I have had with WVDOH officials such as Ray Lewis that indicate that they will get bicycles off the roads. In response to the plan, we should advocate for paving shoulders. We should oppose striping shoulders as bike lanes. We should vociferously oppose prohibiting bicycles from using the roadway when a bike lane or side path is present. The legislation change proposals in the plan's Appendix A, particularly 17C-11-5 on page 77 deny cyclists' right to the roadway. We should advocate for complete deletion of 17C-11-5. (For your convenience, I have cut and pasted at the end of this message, 17C-11-2 with the changes proposed in the plan.) Paving shoulders is a good idea. Expecting cyclists to ride on them is not such a good idea. Striping them as bike lanes is a bad idea. Requiring cyclists to ride on them and forbidding cyclists to ride on the roadway is a clear denial of cyclists' right to the roadway. *PAVING SHOULDERS IS A GOOD IDEA* Paving shoulders is a good idea because doing so reduces the cost of maintaining the roadway, keeps the roadway cleaner and provides an escape for cyclists or motorists who perceive that traveling on the roadway is unsafe. *EXPECTING CYCLISTS TO RIDE ON SHOULDERS IS NOT SUCH A GOOD IDEA* Expecting cyclists to ride on shoulders is not such a good idea because driving on shoulders is often less safe than driving on the roadway. Paved shoulders may be great for climbing a long steep hill beside a high speed narrow roadway that has no cross traffic but there are at least 4 reasons that expecting cyclists to ride on shoulders is not such a good idea. 1. Shoulders often collect debris such as gravel, glass, dead animals, construction materials and car parts that present a very significant crash hazard particularly on curvy high speed descents. I recently saw a statistic that something like 75% of automobile crashes are due to debris on the roadway. The WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan does not include any provision for keeping the shoulders clean. 2. The cross grade of shoulders is usually designed to channel water from the roadway rather than to provide sufficient centripetal force to hold a vehicle on the shoulder when traveling at speed. This is usually not a problem when traveling slowly up hill but especially on curvy descents, it can be quite dangerous particularly in wet or icy conditions. The plan includes no provision to reconstruct the shoulders to ensure sufficient traction for bicycles driving on the shoulders particularly around curves on downhills. 3. Cycling on the shoulder puts cyclists where motorists don't look for traffic. This problem is particularly severe at crossings. How often have we heard a motorist exclaim after hitting a cyclist with his or her car, "I didn't even see him!"? When a motorist makes a right turn from a roadway into a driveway or a cross road, they look to the left for traffic, not to the right. If a bicyclist is on the shoulder to their right rather than in the travel lane, the motorist won't see them. "Right hooks" are one of the most common types of crashes between motor vehicles and bicyclists. When a motorist makes a left turn into a driveway or a cross road, they look for a break in on-coming traffic before making the left turn. If a bicyclist traveling on the shoulder is obscured from the motorist's view by vehicles on the roadway passing the bicyclist, the motorist can turn left immediately after a gap appears in the line of on-coming motor vehicles and into the the cyclist on the shoulder. "Left hooks" are also one of the most common types of crashes between motor vehicles and bicycles. The most common cause of crashes between motor vehicles and bicycles is the drive out from an intersection. One reason these occur is that the motorist doesn't see the bicyclist when they drive out from the intersection. The narrow profile of an on-coming bicycle makes it difficult to see and judge its speed. This problem is bad enough when cyclists are in the travel lane. It can be expected to be worse when the bicyclist is on the shoulder where the motorist is even less likely to be looking, especially when they're talking on the phone. The plan does not recognize these dangers and includes no designs for handling bicycles riding on the shoulders at traffic crossings. 4. Traveling on the shoulder and then merging from the shoulder to the travel lane, to go straight through an intersection or to make a left turn at an intersection is less safe than traveling in the through lane or merging from the through lane to the left side of the lane or to a left turn lane to make a left turn. The plan does not recognize these challenges and includes no designs for ensuring safe merging from the shoulder. *STRIPING SHOULDERS AS BIKE LANES IS A BAD IDEA* Striping shoulders as bike lanes is a bad idea for 3 reasons: 1. Striping the shoulders as bike lanes will encourage bicyclists, particularly inexperienced cyclists, to drive on the bike lane when it may indeed be less safe than the roadway because of inadequate bike lane maintenance or unsafe bike lane construction as discussed above. The plan does not provide justification for striping the shoulders as bike lanes rather than just paving the shoulders and leaving them unmarked. 2. Striping the shoulders as bike lanes can be expected to confuse both motorists and bicyclists about where the bicyclist should be on the highway. Too many motorists and bicyclists already are unaware that the law gives bicyclists the same rights to the roadway as motorists. Few motorists and cyclists are aware that the safest position for the cyclist can be on the left side of the travel lane, for example, when making a left turn. Motorists can be expected to be less accommodating of bicycles merging left across the roadway from a bike lane than of bicycles merging left in the travel lane or from the travel lane. While the design directives in the plan specify: " Cars hitting bikes that make left turns from the right side of the roadway is also a common type of crash between motor vehicles and bicycles. At locations where the shoulder width becomes too narrow for use as bicycle lanes, signage will be installed reading "BICYCLE LANE ENDS MERGE WITH TRAFFIC", the plan does not recognize the turn movements that cyclists must be able to make and it provides no provision for making such turn movements safer from the bike lane than from a travel lane. It also provides no justification that merging from the bike lane could be safer than merging in or from the travel lane. 3. Striping shoulders as bike lanes can be expected to increase the attitude among the general public, motorists and even many bicyclists that bicyclists do not have a right to the road. Striping the shoulders as bike lanes can decrease the safety of cyclists who choose to drive on the roadway because motorists may believe that they are not required to exercise due care for cyclists when they believe that cyclists do not belong on the roadway. The plan does not recognize the problem of erroneous perception of cyclists' rights to the roadway. The plan does include laudable bicycle safety training but it is not clear that the training will cover cyclists' right to the road. *FORBIDDING CYCLISTS FROM DRIVING ON THE ROADWAY EXPLICITLY DENIES CYCLISTS' RIGHT TO THE ROAD* The design directives in the plan state: "Bicycles are required to use marked bicycle lane if present." The proposed 17C-11-5c states: "Whenever a paved path has been constructed and designated for bicycles adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway". Forbidding cyclists from driving on the roadway when a bike lane and side path exists explicitly denies bicyclists' right to the roadway. Forcing cyclists to drive on bike lanes and bike paths indicates that even the WVDOH doesn't believe that they are safer than cycling on the roadway. Requiring cyclists to drive on bike lanes and bike paths and prohibiting cyclists from driving on the roadway indicates that getting cyclists off the road is a higher WVDOH priority than cyclist safety. My understanding is that all states put language such as that in 17C-11-2 that grants cyclists equal rights to the roadway into their state laws in the early 1900's but language such as that in 17C-11-5 did not appear until after World War II when our country became decidedly auto-centric. While other states are recognizing the discrimination of Far to the Right (FTR), Mandatory Bike Lane (MBL), Mandatory Shoulder Use (MSU) and Mandatory Side Path (MSP) requirements and repealing these discriminatory articles from their laws, WV is heading toward becoming the only state in the union with all 4. The attached table shows the current status of the 50 states with respect to these laws. (My thanks to fellow LCI Dan Gutierrez for creating that file.) Frank Gmeindl Chairman, Morgantown Municipal Bicycle Board LCI #1703 /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/ *§17C-11-5. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths. *(as contained in draft WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan)* * (a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction. _except; when overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction, when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway, when riding in the right turn only lane, or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane. _ (b) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. _Persons riding two abreast, where allowed, shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and shall ride within a single lane. _ (c) Whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided _paved path has been constructed and designated for bicycles _adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway. _(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting persons from riding bicycles on or along shoulders of a street or highway._ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Bicycles on roadway shoulders Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:47:42 -0500 From: Robinson, Bill C <Bill.C.Robinson(a)wv.gov> To: Kimberly Jo <kimberlyjoshi(a)gmail.com> CC: Frank Gmeindl <fgmeindl(a)verizon.net>, Hudson, Jim E <Jim.E.Hudson(a)wv.gov>, Simmons, Harold R <Harold.R.Simmons(a)wv.gov>, Warner, Richard L <Richard.L.Warner(a)wv.gov>, Stanevich, Ron L <Ron.L.Stanevich(a)wv.gov> References: <9F99D851A5A1AA42BC98EF491E731F8F31967E(a)WVOTMAIL04.executive.stateofwv.gov> <4AE740C8.8050400(a)verizon.net> <9F99D851A5A1AA42BC98EF491E731F8FD24DAE(a)WVOTMAIL04.executive.stateofwv.gov> <bf837ff30911030817j7f632cc2ya2297cd14213fc3b(a)mail.gmail.com> *Kim -- * * * *Regretfully, I would like to ask that you not distribute the draft plan you received. This version is only the second draft; it has never left our Division; it has never been seen by the top-level managers in the WVDOH (such as the Secretary/Commissioner or the State Highway Engineer); it really has no standing. It is what I've told you that it is: simply a draft "starting point". We've already done one extensive re-write; we expect probably at least one more before submittal to higher level management. We have started with everything we think may be possible for the WVDOH to achieve, but obviously without management "buy-in" we can't promise anything. To release this draft plan (which was meant to only be reviewed internally in the WVDOH) may jeopardize or complicate the process; if WVDOH management is in disagreement or apprehensive about any of the draft recommendations, public comment at this point may erode our ability to sway people internally on what might be perceived (again, internally) as questionable directions for the WVDOH. In addition, in the interest of fairness to the citizens, we don't want to "piecemeal" drafts out to people without all interested parties having a chance to view it at the same time.* * * *As in our earlier conversations, when we have a version of this plan that the WVDOH management is comfortable with, the WVDOH will have a public comment period and will welcome input from the bicycle community and all the interested citizens, but we're not at that point right now and receiving comments on a "rough" draft document that may change significantly won't be helpful to the WVDOH or a good use of the time and energy of the bicycle community at this point. So please, just take a look at the draft, see it as an indicator of the larger picture of what the WVDOH is trying to do and I'll contact you when we are ready for public comment.* * * *Bill* *William C. Robinson*** *State Trail Coordinator* *Progam Manager, Recreational Trails Program * *WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator* *Chairman, West Virginia Recreational Trails Advisory Board* * * *West Virginia Department of Transportation* *Division of Highways* *Program Planning and Administration Division* *1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East* *Building 5, Room 863* *Charleston, West Virginia 25305-0430* *(304)558-9615 Fax -- (304)558-3783* *bill.c.robinson(a)wv.gov <mailto:bill.c.robinson@wv.gov>* *_"_**The life of the artist is, in relation to his work, stern and lonely. He has labored hard,* *often amid depravation, to perfect his skill. He has turned aside from quick success in* *order to strip his vision of everything secondary or cheapening. His working life is* *marked by intense application and intense discipline." - John F. Kennedy, 1962 * * * * * * * * * *From:* Kimberly Jo [mailto:kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:18 AM *To:* Robinson, Bill C *Subject:* Fwd: Bicycles on roadway shoulders What's up Bill? Can I distribute this to our list. Thanks! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Stanevich, Ron L* <Ron.L.Stanevich(a)wv.gov <mailto:Ron.L.Stanevich@wv.gov>> Date: Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:53 AM Subject: RE: Bicycles on roadway shoulders To: Frank Gmeindl <fgmeindl(a)verizon.net <mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net>> Cc: Kim Broughton <kimberlyjoshi(a)gmail.com <mailto:kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com>> Frank / Kim Thanks for your responses last week. I've attached a draft copy of the WVDOH's Bicycle / Ped Plan (note, I don't think that this is the actual title, but because this is a draft copy, some of the titles are missing). In this plan are several changes to current WVDOH Policies and changes that the DOH intends to make to the WV Code in the very near future. Please note the DOH is only making changes that we feel affect its operations and issues. What I'm told that has been the direction given from our management. Nevertheless I've been "befriended" some of the employees in Planning and they've given me these draft copies to review. I asked if I could circulate them to friends for comments. They said they had no problem with that. So that's what I'm doing. If you have comments on any of these proposals. Please feel free to submit them to me as soon as possible. I have no clue as to when the Division plans to submit this, or what the rest of the review process is like or consists of. Again, it's not my section. But the sooner you can get me comments, I will forward them on to the appropriate individuals. Frank... concerning our correspondence last week about the shoulder riding, the division has proposed a change to 17C-11-5 by adding a section (d) that states that /Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as prohibiting persons from riding bicycles on or along the shoulders or a street or highway/. Anyhow, I thought I would circulate these proposals for a wider reviewing audience. I did say that I would try to get comments back to them shortly and they would look at them. Again this is just a draft proposal of WVDOH Policies, and changes to the State Code that deal with DOH issues in regards to Pedestrians and Bicycles. Please feel free to review circulate and comment back to me if you wish, and I'll try to make sure they get to the appropriate personnel. /Ron Stanevich, PE/ /Specifications Engineer/ /West Virginia Division Of Highways/ /Contract Administration/ /1900 Kanawha Blvd East/ /Bldg 5, RM 722/ /304.558.9556/ *From:* Frank Gmeindl [mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net <mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net>] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:50 PM *To:* Stanevich, Ron L *Cc:* Kimberly Jo *Subject:* Re: Bicycles on roadway shoulders Ron, Thanks for contacting me. I hope the class is stimulating and informative. Wish I were there with you! I have a lot to learn:) The WV code is unclear whether bicyclists are permitted to drive their bicycles on shoulders. Since the code doesn't explicitly address bicycling on shoulders, one could argue that it is permitted. However, a problem arises when a cyclist is injured while bicycling on the shoulder or when a bicyclist while bicycling on the shoulder, injures someone. The WV code only says that bicyclists have the same rights and duties as motorists when they're on the roadway. WV code 17C-1-37 explicitly excludes the shoulder from the definition of "Roadway". Specifically, 17C-1-37 says, ""Roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, *exclusive of the berm or shoulder*." That is, according to WV code, the shoulder is not part of the roadway. Why is that important? It's important because WV code 17C-11-2 only gives cyclists equal right to motorists when the bicyclist is bicycling on the roadway. Explicitly, 17C-11-2 says, "Every person riding a bicycle *upon a roadway* shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application." I am surprised that the NHI instructor believes that WV's State Code falls back on the Uniform Vehicle Code because the WVDOH told me otherwise. Here's a quote from a December 17 e-mail from Ray Lewis, WVDOT Staff Engineer - Traffic Research and Special Projects to Bill Robinson, WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator "The UVC is a model code, like many other model codes. There is no requirement that West Virginia adopt it, or conform to it. The WV Code language governs in all cases. We were able for several years to have bills introduced in the Legislature to have the WV CODE brought into conformity with the UVC; our efforts repeatedly failed." Kim Broughton was copied on that e-mail. The reason this came up is that Bill, Ray and I were discussing 17C-11-5 that says, "Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable...". I cited the UVC that clarifies "as near to the right as practicable" and above was Mr. Lewis' response. I hope this answers your question. Please let me know how it turns out. Frank Gmeindl League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructor #1703 Chairman, Morgantown Municipal Bicycle Board On 10/27/2009 1:58 PM, Stanevich, Ron L wrote: Mr. Gmeindle I'm currently in a NHI bicycle & pedestrian facilities class. The instructors here from FHWA feel that WV's State Code falls back on the Universal Vehicle Code when it comes to the subject issue. I remember at this past summer's Symposium, it was discussed that bicycles were not allowed on roadway shoulders. I was trying to find where this issue is addressed in state code, and Kim Broughton passed me along to you. Thanks Ron Stanevich WVDOH Message sent from my Blackberry! -- Kimberly Broughton Creative Crosswalks, LLC kimberlyjoshi(a)gmail.com <mailto:kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com> 304.483.1685

4 3

Campus Connector letter to TC
by Frank Gmeindl 11 Nov '09

11 Nov '09

Bicycle Board Members, Please reply with your concurrence with the attached letter from the BB to the TC on the Campus Connector. This was an action item from our meeting last week. If you have any suggested changes, please reply-all so we all can see the changes you propose. I will present the letter to the TC when we have concurrence from all members. Thanks to Hugh for creating the first draft! :-) Frank /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/

2 1

Jones Avenue crash
by Frank Gmeindl 10 Nov '09

10 Nov '09

Bicycle Board Members, This Thursday, November 12, at 4:30 pm in Municipal Court the hearing will be held on John Duarte's crash on Jones Avenue. Municipal Court is in the Public Safety Center, the same building in which we have our monthly meeting. John is OK with cyclists attending the hearing. The driver that pulled out in front of him is contesting the citation for failure to yield that the police gave him. A policeman showed up within 5 minutes of the crash. The policeman took a deposition from the driver and one witness. John's bicycle did not collide with the car. When he saw the car pulling out in front of him he braked and flew over the handle bars. He broke his pelvis. He thinks his left leg jamming into his pelvis caused the fracture. He landed with his legs straddling the driver side front wheel of the car with his right leg behind the tire and his left leg in front of the tire. The driver backed over his right leg and then pulled forward off of it. John was screaming all this time and there were several people around also yelling to the driver to stop that someone was under his car. John had 4.5 hours of surgery that went in through his abdomen. He has 2-3 plates and several screws. He has much neurological damage to his left side. His leg and foot continue to be inflamed. He can walk on crutches but does not have feeling in his left leg. Frank /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/

1 0

Fwd: November minutes
by Elizabeth Shogren 09 Nov '09

09 Nov '09

1 0

[Fwd: WV 705 Share the Road Signs]
by Frank Gmeindl 09 Nov '09

09 Nov '09

Bicycle Board Members, FYI, WVDOH says they'll put Share the Road signs on 705. Frank /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: WV 705 Share the Road Signs Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:06:40 -0500 From: Bill Austin <baustin(a)moncpc.org> To: <moncom(a)aol.com>, "'Don Spencer'" <dspencer36(a)comcast.net>, <dulaneyoil(a)comcast.net>, "'Perry J' 'Keller'" <Perry.J.Keller(a)wv.gov>, "'Patricia Lewis'" <gvmayor(a)comcast.net>, <bill(a)byrnehedges.com>, "'David Bruffy'" <Bruffy(a)busride.org>, <Bellcom21(a)aol.com>, <statler4board(a)hotmail.com>, <Jenstraface(a)msn.com>, <charliebyrer(a)gmail.com>, "'Joe Fisher'" <Joe.Fisher(a)mail.wvu.edu>, <jlgoodwi(a)access.k12.wv.us> CC: 'Hugh Kierig' <Hugh.Kierig(a)mail.wvu.edu>, 'Terry Hough' <though(a)cityofmorgantown.org>, 'Damien Davis' <ddavis(a)cityofmorgantown.org> Board Members, For your information As we discussed at the last MPO meeting there were some concerns that the recent improvement to WV 705 between Stewartstown and the Mileground did not sufficiently address cyclists potential use of the road. I spoke informally to the local DOH Traffic Engineer today and he informed me that they will be installing Share the Road Sign on the facility in the next two months. I should have more detailed information in this matter in the next couple of weeks. This should make the situation a little better for cyclists in the area. Please let me know if you have any questions on this matter or if I may be of assistance. Thank you, Bill Austin, AICP Executive Director Morgantown Monongalia MPO 180 Hart Field Road Morgantown, WVA 26508 304-291-9571 304-692-7225 Mobile

1 0

Bike Board logo?
by Derek Springston 09 Nov '09

09 Nov '09

Hey guys, Do you think we should develop a Bike Board logo to put on our documents and maps. I think it could be quite valuable for helping folks recognize the work we're doing. ~Derek “Every time I see an adult on a bicycle I no longer despair for the future of the human race.” -H.G. Wells _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/

2 1

MapFest next Tuesday
by Frank Gmeindl 05 Nov '09

05 Nov '09

Bicycle Board Members, Next Tuesday, October 6, 6-9 pm we will review the first draft comprehensive Morgantown Bicycle Route map and try to complete it so we can produce it and distribute it at the Oct. 19 grand opening of the Mountaineer Station. We will meet in the Training Room in the Public Safety Center. Please come and contribute to perfecting the map. Or, just to give thanks to Derek for all the tremendous work that he's done pulling this together. Frank

5 6

Merge bike parking recommendations
by Frank Gmeindl 04 Nov '09

04 Nov '09

Chip, Alice, Don, Jennie, Please review the file at: http://www.4shared.com/file/146410769/a83ced92/HighStBikeParking200911040.h… and tell me when you can meet so we can decide which post-and-loop racks we can eliminate. The file is Damien Davis' most recent High Street Streetscape drawings showing the current locations of the post-and-loop racks after we moved several from the simulated red bricks to the white concrete. You will also notice highlighted in green with penciled in numbers, the parking meter posts that we selected for mounting loops. It also includes really cool photos of one of our star City counselors standing dutifully with her bike in the rain. Today, I met with Tom Arnold and he approved those 17 parking meter posts for installation of bicycle parking loops that Chip, Alice and I recommeded. He also really wants to put 2 on either side of the PSC as we recommended. He will present our recommendation to the Parking Authority on November 11. He is confident that they, including Charlie McEwuen will approve them. Damien's High Street drawing only shows 15 parking meters because 2 of those we recommended are on Walnut Street by the Moose. Now we have to decide which of the post-and-loop locations that we recommended to the City we must keep and which we can delete. I have already indicated some that I think we can delete because the parking meter mounts will now suffice for them and Damien thinks they may have an ADA conflict. That leaves approximately 15 that we must decide whether to keep or delete. We can afford about 10 of them but if we put all 10 on High Street we'll have no money left for any other locations such as Courthouse Square, South High Station, Black Bear, Willey Street, Spruce Street or the Parking garages. Let me know when you can meet. I'm also copying the Bicycle Board in case any other members want to contribute. Frank

1 0

[Fwd: RE: Bicycles on roadway shoulders]
by Frank Gmeindl 04 Nov '09

04 Nov '09

Bicycle Board Members, Please see message below from Bill Robinson, State Trail Coordinator. PLEASE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THE PRELIMINARY WVDOH BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PLAN THAT I SENT YOU YESTERDAY. I still think it's worth reading to show us what they're thinking. Frank -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Bicycles on roadway shoulders Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:47:42 -0500 From: Robinson, Bill C <Bill.C.Robinson(a)wv.gov> To: Kimberly Jo <kimberlyjoshi(a)gmail.com> CC: Frank Gmeindl <fgmeindl(a)verizon.net>, Hudson, Jim E <Jim.E.Hudson(a)wv.gov>, Simmons, Harold R <Harold.R.Simmons(a)wv.gov>, Warner, Richard L <Richard.L.Warner(a)wv.gov>, Stanevich, Ron L <Ron.L.Stanevich(a)wv.gov> References: <9F99D851A5A1AA42BC98EF491E731F8F31967E(a)WVOTMAIL04.executive.stateofwv.gov> <4AE740C8.8050400(a)verizon.net> <9F99D851A5A1AA42BC98EF491E731F8FD24DAE(a)WVOTMAIL04.executive.stateofwv.gov> <bf837ff30911030817j7f632cc2ya2297cd14213fc3b(a)mail.gmail.com> *Kim -- * * * *Regretfully, I would like to ask that you not distribute the draft plan you received. This version is only the second draft; it has never left our Division; it has never been seen by the top-level managers in the WVDOH (such as the Secretary/Commissioner or the State Highway Engineer); it really has no standing. It is what I've told you that it is: simply a draft "starting point". We've already done one extensive re-write; we expect probably at least one more before submittal to higher level management. We have started with everything we think may be possible for the WVDOH to achieve, but obviously without management "buy-in" we can't promise anything. To release this draft plan (which was meant to only be reviewed internally in the WVDOH) may jeopardize or complicate the process; if WVDOH management is in disagreement or apprehensive about any of the draft recommendations, public comment at this point may erode our ability to sway people internally on what might be perceived (again, internally) as questionable directions for the WVDOH. In addition, in the interest of fairness to the citizens, we don't want to "piecemeal" drafts out to people without all interested parties having a chance to view it at the same time.* * * *As in our earlier conversations, when we have a version of this plan that the WVDOH management is comfortable with, the WVDOH will have a public comment period and will welcome input from the bicycle community and all the interested citizens, but we're not at that point right now and receiving comments on a "rough" draft document that may change significantly won't be helpful to the WVDOH or a good use of the time and energy of the bicycle community at this point. So please, just take a look at the draft, see it as an indicator of the larger picture of what the WVDOH is trying to do and I'll contact you when we are ready for public comment.* * * *Bill* *William C. Robinson*** *State Trail Coordinator* *Progam Manager, Recreational Trails Program * *WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator* *Chairman, West Virginia Recreational Trails Advisory Board* * * *West Virginia Department of Transportation* *Division of Highways* *Program Planning and Administration Division* *1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East* *Building 5, Room 863* *Charleston, West Virginia 25305-0430* *(304)558-9615 Fax -- (304)558-3783* *bill.c.robinson(a)wv.gov <mailto:bill.c.robinson@wv.gov>* *_"_**The life of the artist is, in relation to his work, stern and lonely. He has labored hard,* *often amid depravation, to perfect his skill. He has turned aside from quick success in* *order to strip his vision of everything secondary or cheapening. His working life is* *marked by intense application and intense discipline." - John F. Kennedy, 1962 * * * * * * * * * *From:* Kimberly Jo [mailto:kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:18 AM *To:* Robinson, Bill C *Subject:* Fwd: Bicycles on roadway shoulders What's up Bill? Can I distribute this to our list. Thanks! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Stanevich, Ron L* <Ron.L.Stanevich(a)wv.gov <mailto:Ron.L.Stanevich@wv.gov>> Date: Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:53 AM Subject: RE: Bicycles on roadway shoulders To: Frank Gmeindl <fgmeindl(a)verizon.net <mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net>> Cc: Kim Broughton <kimberlyjoshi(a)gmail.com <mailto:kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com>> Frank / Kim Thanks for your responses last week. I've attached a draft copy of the WVDOH's Bicycle / Ped Plan (note, I don't think that this is the actual title, but because this is a draft copy, some of the titles are missing). In this plan are several changes to current WVDOH Policies and changes that the DOH intends to make to the WV Code in the very near future. Please note the DOH is only making changes that we feel affect its operations and issues. What I'm told that has been the direction given from our management. Nevertheless I've been "befriended" some of the employees in Planning and they've given me these draft copies to review. I asked if I could circulate them to friends for comments. They said they had no problem with that. So that's what I'm doing. If you have comments on any of these proposals. Please feel free to submit them to me as soon as possible. I have no clue as to when the Division plans to submit this, or what the rest of the review process is like or consists of. Again, it's not my section. But the sooner you can get me comments, I will forward them on to the appropriate individuals. Frank... concerning our correspondence last week about the shoulder riding, the division has proposed a change to 17C-11-5 by adding a section (d) that states that /Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as prohibiting persons from riding bicycles on or along the shoulders or a street or highway/. Anyhow, I thought I would circulate these proposals for a wider reviewing audience. I did say that I would try to get comments back to them shortly and they would look at them. Again this is just a draft proposal of WVDOH Policies, and changes to the State Code that deal with DOH issues in regards to Pedestrians and Bicycles. Please feel free to review circulate and comment back to me if you wish, and I'll try to make sure they get to the appropriate personnel. /Ron Stanevich, PE/ /Specifications Engineer/ /West Virginia Division Of Highways/ /Contract Administration/ /1900 Kanawha Blvd East/ /Bldg 5, RM 722/ /304.558.9556/ *From:* Frank Gmeindl [mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net <mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net>] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:50 PM *To:* Stanevich, Ron L *Cc:* Kimberly Jo *Subject:* Re: Bicycles on roadway shoulders Ron, Thanks for contacting me. I hope the class is stimulating and informative. Wish I were there with you! I have a lot to learn:) The WV code is unclear whether bicyclists are permitted to drive their bicycles on shoulders. Since the code doesn't explicitly address bicycling on shoulders, one could argue that it is permitted. However, a problem arises when a cyclist is injured while bicycling on the shoulder or when a bicyclist while bicycling on the shoulder, injures someone. The WV code only says that bicyclists have the same rights and duties as motorists when they're on the roadway. WV code 17C-1-37 explicitly excludes the shoulder from the definition of "Roadway". Specifically, 17C-1-37 says, ""Roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, *exclusive of the berm or shoulder*." That is, according to WV code, the shoulder is not part of the roadway. Why is that important? It's important because WV code 17C-11-2 only gives cyclists equal right to motorists when the bicyclist is bicycling on the roadway. Explicitly, 17C-11-2 says, "Every person riding a bicycle *upon a roadway* shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application." I am surprised that the NHI instructor believes that WV's State Code falls back on the Uniform Vehicle Code because the WVDOH told me otherwise. Here's a quote from a December 17 e-mail from Ray Lewis, WVDOT Staff Engineer - Traffic Research and Special Projects to Bill Robinson, WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator "The UVC is a model code, like many other model codes. There is no requirement that West Virginia adopt it, or conform to it. The WV Code language governs in all cases. We were able for several years to have bills introduced in the Legislature to have the WV CODE brought into conformity with the UVC; our efforts repeatedly failed." Kim Broughton was copied on that e-mail. The reason this came up is that Bill, Ray and I were discussing 17C-11-5 that says, "Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable...". I cited the UVC that clarifies "as near to the right as practicable" and above was Mr. Lewis' response. I hope this answers your question. Please let me know how it turns out. Frank Gmeindl League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructor #1703 Chairman, Morgantown Municipal Bicycle Board On 10/27/2009 1:58 PM, Stanevich, Ron L wrote: Mr. Gmeindle I'm currently in a NHI bicycle & pedestrian facilities class. The instructors here from FHWA feel that WV's State Code falls back on the Universal Vehicle Code when it comes to the subject issue. I remember at this past summer's Symposium, it was discussed that bicycles were not allowed on roadway shoulders. I was trying to find where this issue is addressed in state code, and Kim Broughton passed me along to you. Thanks Ron Stanevich WVDOH Message sent from my Blackberry! -- Kimberly Broughton Creative Crosswalks, LLC kimberlyjoshi(a)gmail.com <mailto:kimberlyjoshi@gmail.com> 304.483.1685

1 0

Draft report to TC
by Frank Gmeindl 03 Nov '09

03 Nov '09

Bicycle Board Members, Attached is a draft report to the Traffic Commission that I propose to deliver to them tomorrow night at their regular monthly meeting. I apologize again for the late completion of this. If you would like me to make any changes, please let me know ASAP. I will submit it by 5 pm today. Frank

1 0

[Fwd: RE: Bicycles on roadway shoulders]
by Frank Gmeindl 03 Nov '09

03 Nov '09

Bicycle Board Members, Attached is the WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian plan that I just received. I think we should all review it and prepare a Bicycle Board response. The Combined Plan is 128 pages and will require some digestion. I've only scanned it but the legislation changes and design directives in the appendix tell me that the WVDOH aims to get bicycles off the roads. For example, if there's a bike lane, bicycles must ride in the bike lane and not on the roadway and they're planning to make all shoulders bike lanes. The good news??? is that they plan to monitor crashes at intersections. I hope you all will read the attached carefully. I think we need to submit a response that addresses both the underlying principles of the plan as well as recommended specific line-by-line changes. Attached is a revised agenda for this Thursday's Bicycle Board meeting. Topic 9 will be a 15 minute discussion with the desired outcome that we will have a plan for responding to WVDOH. Frank -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Bicycles on roadway shoulders Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:53:51 -0500 From: Stanevich, Ron L <Ron.L.Stanevich(a)wv.gov> To: Frank Gmeindl <fgmeindl(a)verizon.net> CC: Kim Broughton <kimberlyjoshi(a)gmail.com> References: <9F99D851A5A1AA42BC98EF491E731F8F31967E(a)WVOTMAIL04.executive.stateofwv.gov> <4AE740C8.8050400(a)verizon.net> Frank / Kim Thanks for your responses last week. I’ve attached a draft copy of the WVDOH’s Bicycle / Ped Plan (note, I don’t think that this is the actual title, but because this is a draft copy, some of the titles are missing). In this plan are several changes to current WVDOH Policies and changes that the DOH intends to make to the WV Code in the very near future. Please note the DOH is only making changes that we feel affect its operations and issues. What I’m told that has been the direction given from our management. Nevertheless I’ve been “befriended” some of the employees in Planning and they’ve given me these draft copies to review. I asked if I could circulate them to friends for comments. They said they had no problem with that. So that’s what I’m doing. If you have comments on any of these proposals. Please feel free to submit them to me as soon as possible. I have no clue as to when the Division plans to submit this, or what the rest of the review process is like or consists of. Again, it’s not my section. But the sooner you can get me comments, I will forward them on to the appropriate individuals. Frank… concerning our correspondence last week about the shoulder riding, the division has proposed a change to 17C-11-5 by adding a section (d) that states that /Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as prohibiting persons from riding bicycles on or along the shoulders or a street or highway/. Anyhow, I thought I would circulate these proposals for a wider reviewing audience. I did say that I would try to get comments back to them shortly and they would look at them. Again this is just a draft proposal of WVDOH Policies, and changes to the State Code that deal with DOH issues in regards to Pedestrians and Bicycles. Please feel free to review circulate and comment back to me if you wish, and I’ll try to make sure they get to the appropriate personnel. /Ron Stanevich, PE/ /Specifications Engineer/// /West Virginia Division Of Highways/// /Contract Administration/// /1900 Kanawha Blvd East/// /Bldg 5, RM 722/ /304.558.9556/ *From:* Frank Gmeindl [mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:50 PM *To:* Stanevich, Ron L *Cc:* Kimberly Jo *Subject:* Re: Bicycles on roadway shoulders Ron, Thanks for contacting me. I hope the class is stimulating and informative. Wish I were there with you! I have a lot to learn:) The WV code is unclear whether bicyclists are permitted to drive their bicycles on shoulders. Since the code doesn't explicitly address bicycling on shoulders, one could argue that it is permitted. However, a problem arises when a cyclist is injured while bicycling on the shoulder or when a bicyclist while bicycling on the shoulder, injures someone. The WV code only says that bicyclists have the same rights and duties as motorists when they're on the roadway. WV code 17C-1-37 explicitly excludes the shoulder from the definition of "Roadway". Specifically, 17C-1-37 says, ""Roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, *exclusive of the berm or shoulder*." That is, according to WV code, the shoulder is not part of the roadway. Why is that important? It's important because WV code 17C-11-2 only gives cyclists equal right to motorists when the bicyclist is bicycling on the roadway. Explicitly, 17C-11-2 says, "Every person riding a bicycle *upon a roadway* shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application." I am surprised that the NHI instructor believes that WV's State Code falls back on the Uniform Vehicle Code because the WVDOH told me otherwise. Here's a quote from a December 17 e-mail from Ray Lewis, WVDOT Staff Engineer - Traffic Research and Special Projects to Bill Robinson, WVDOH Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator "The UVC is a model code, like many other model codes. There is no requirement that West Virginia adopt it, or conform to it. The WV Code language governs in all cases. We were able for several years to have bills introduced in the Legislature to have the WV CODE brought into conformity with the UVC; our efforts repeatedly failed." Kim Broughton was copied on that e-mail. The reason this came up is that Bill, Ray and I were discussing 17C-11-5 that says, "Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable...". I cited the UVC that clarifies "as near to the right as practicable" and above was Mr. Lewis' response. I hope this answers your question. Please let me know how it turns out. Frank Gmeindl League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructor #1703 Chairman, Morgantown Municipal Bicycle Board On 10/27/2009 1:58 PM, Stanevich, Ron L wrote: Mr. Gmeindle I'm currently in a NHI bicycle & pedestrian facilities class. The instructors here from FHWA feel that WV's State Code falls back on the Universal Vehicle Code when it comes to the subject issue. I remember at this past summer's Symposium, it was discussed that bicycles were not allowed on roadway shoulders. I was trying to find where this issue is addressed in state code, and Kim Broughton passed me along to you. Thanks Ron Stanevich WVDOH Message sent from my Blackberry!

1 0

This Thursday's Bicycle Board meeting
by Frank Gmeindl 02 Nov '09

02 Nov '09

Bicycle Board Members, Please find attached a suggested agenda for this Thursday's Bicycle Board meeting. Also attached are the minutes of our last meeting, the September meeting. See you Thursday. Frank /Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles/

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

Bikeboard November 2009