Excellent!

Don

---

From: bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org [mailto:bikeboard-bounces@cheat.org] On Behalf Of Frank Gmeindl
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:05 PM
To: Greg Good
Cc: bikeboard@cheat.org; 'John Lozier'
Subject: Re: [Bikeboard] Bike lane

All,

Please view the attached in slide show view (otherwise, it's harder to comprehend).  It is a presentation by Fred Oswald, LCI #947, on bicycle integration vs. separation.  It also adds a few cautions and design considerations for the bike-under-chevron recommendations that we're recommending to the Traffic Commission.  Particularly, where in the lane to put them, which we have yet to address (see slides 13-14).  The Traffic Commission is expecting us to deliver at it 13-June meeting, a detailed step-by-step implementation plan for our Bike-Under-Chevron on-road sign recommendation.  With just about every roadway "improvement" being considered in the county and city planning to get cyclists out of the traffic flow, knowledge of the issues and our action is imperative.

Frank

Greg Good wrote:

Hi all, it may surprise you all, but I agree that most cyclists are safer on the road than coming to the road from a path. There are, however, specific engineering guidelines readily available for the safest ways to bring bike paths up to auto traffic. For example, the intersection of the Deckers Creek Trail with old Rt 7 behind the Dominion Post is a poster child for an accident waiting to happen.
 
We do have a SERIOUS issue to stay alert to. As Nick and others have pointed out, a part of WV code says cyclists must use a path if it is available. Right? Well, watch out as Beechurst is re-designed. We need to be STRONG, VOCAL ADVOCATES for bike lanes on Beechurst. The alternative will be signs saying we must ride on the trail.
 
See this web link to Cambridge England, where cyclists are about to have major impediments of this sort thrown at them. http://www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/issues/highwaycode/
 
Greg
 
 

"Don Spencer" <dspencer36@comcast.net> 5/16/2007 10:45 PM >>>
 

Frank - I do feel that there is a big difference in this case between a bike
path and a bike lane. If the rider was in the pavement area (with or without
a bike lane dividing line) with the truck then the truck driver would have
had to be aware of him. If he were on a path or sidewalk, it is plausible to
think that the rider would stop.
 
 
 
Don
 
 
 
  _____  
 
From: Frank Gmeindl [mailto:fgmeindl@verizon.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 6:31 AM
To: Don Spencer; Greg Good; Jim Rye; John Lozier
Cc: Nick Hein
Subject: Bike lane
 
 
 
Don, et al,
 
Did you see the article, "Helmut protects as truck runs over man's head" in
the lower right corner of today's (5/16) Dominion Post?  A cyclist riding
down a bike path (other renditions of the article say bike lane).  As he
approached an INTERSECTION, he saw that a truck was going to turn right in
front of him.  So, he hauled on the breaks, fell down and the truck ran over
his head.
 
I'm addressing this message to proponents of bike paths and bike lanes to
illustrate that they can be more dangerous than the road.  The truck driver
was probably paying no attention to what was going on in the path/lane.  We
all know that most bike/motor vehicle accidents occur in intersections.  As
long as cyclists aren't visible and predictable, they will continue to get
hit in the intersections.  To increase visibility and predictability, we
must design our roads properly and educate our cyclists and motorists.
 
Frank
 
Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles