HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2010, 2:12 AM
hammersklavier's Avatar
hammersklavier hammersklavier is offline
Your 2016 AAC Champs!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Polis Philou Adelfou
Posts: 5,595
Well, when you think about it, isn't being towed away a form of temporary disablement?
__________________
Urban Rambles | Hidden City

Who knows but that, on the lower levels, I speak for you?’ (Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2010, 4:26 AM
lawfin lawfin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwadswor View Post
That seems a little harsh. What moving violation in a car carries a penalty of having the car disabled? Towed away maybe.
This is a direct result of the peculiar urban form of this area and its demographics (largely elderly at least of time of this passage)

There were collisions with bicyclists and elderly....of course in such a collision which could involve broken bones could be life threatening. Additionally the sidewalks offered a straight shot to the Lake Path...hence they drew heavy traffic


It is a pretty steep penalty....but it did not arise ex nihilo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2010, 7:46 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 17,836
Quote:
The penalty for any person age 18 and older who rides a bicycle on the sidewalk adjacent to North Sheridan Road, between West Ardmore Avenue and West Sheridan Road (6400 north) shall be as follows:
I assume the street on North Sheridan Road, between West Ardmore Avenue and West Sheridan Road is a safe one to cycle on. It had better be.
__________________
BeyondDC: blog | twitter | flickr | instagram | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2010, 7:59 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Miami of Canada
Posts: 19,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
I assume the street on North Sheridan Road, between West Ardmore Avenue and West Sheridan Road is a safe one to cycle on. It had better be.
no, that stretch of sheridan is wickedly dangerous for bikes. it's extremely busy because it's right where LSD ends and it has two narrow lanes in each direction, and cars doing 45mph. because it's so dangerous, and because it's right at the end of the lakefront bike trail, lots of cyclists were using the sidewalks along sheridan instead, this in an area FILLED with elderly people out walking around and it was just a recipe for disaster. so instead the city has made it so cyclists must use the much calmer side streets immediately to the west of sheridan that have dedicated bike lanes.

it's a solution that makes a lot of sense, and it is even well marked with signs, but some cyclists still don't seem to get it (or don't want to get it) and insist on riding on sheridan or the sidewalks along it, hence the seemingly draconian punishment.
__________________
He has to go.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Feb 25, 2010 at 10:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2010, 8:19 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
I'm generally laissez-faire about urban cycling practices--I average about 15 miles per day, all of it in central SF--but I absolutely detest sidewalk cycling. I never do it, and I refuse to tolerate it in others. Maybe in a city where nobody walks it might--might--be defensible, but not in a city like San Francisco or Chicago.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2010, 8:25 PM
240glt's Avatar
240glt 240glt is offline
HVAC guru
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: EDM ->->-> Okanagan
Posts: 10,523
^^ I am not familiar with that area, but I've seen similar situations here in Edmonton Alberta and the primary reason cyclists won't use the side streets is because it usually involves stopping every block or two for a stop sign, being re-routed to pedestrian crossings at major intersections with major roads and being forced to switch roles between cyclist and pedestrian to get across major streets.

Cities figure they'll just run a bike route down a quiet side street without thinking about the implications to someone trying to actually get anywhere on a bike. ROutes like this may be fine for my folks who toodle along on their city cruisers at a liesurely pace, but when I ride my road bike I put on anywhere between 50 & 100k's in a session. Hard to do when you're stopping every 30 seconds, & it sounds like that's what may be happenning in your case

I certainly don't believe that bikes should be on sidewalks, but it can take some balls to ride on street in heavy traffic. I'm confident enough in my cycling abilities that I bike on street pretty mcuh everywhere, but for those who are not as brave, options need to exist.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2010, 8:33 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Miami of Canada
Posts: 19,389
^ for the specific case of that stretch of sheridan road in chicago's edgewater neighborhood, the side street bypass is really quite easy, and even though it has stop signs at every intersection, i roll right through them unless there's opposing traffic (all side street intersections in chicago are 4 way stops, so rolling through them without traffic is easily and safely done). besides, if you're on sheridan, you'd just have to contend with stop lights at every intersection anyway, so you're not gonna get through that stretch any faster, unless you run the red lights.

i bike that stretch everyday as it's part of my commute, and the bypass bike lanes on the side streets to the immediate west work very well and are a shit-ton safer than trying to fight the traffic zoo on sheridan road. at rush hour it's just too busy and crazy for bikes, all the cars are just immediately getting off of an expressway or fighting with each other to get on the expressway (LSD). it's nuts. though i do occasionally see some goofball attempt to bike it. i too am comfortable riding with traffic on busy streets, but that particular stretch of sheridan seems like it has "death wish" written all over it.
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2010, 9:28 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
more brains
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 46,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
The bicycle is obviously a transportation device, and one that was on our streets before cars were even invented.
Or motorcycles, or buses, or street cars, or of course airplanes. I think the only two forms of transportation that are older than bicycles are boats and trains.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint
I'm generally laissez-faire about urban cycling practices--I average about 15 miles per day, all of it in central SF--but I absolutely detest sidewalk cycling. I never do it, and I refuse to tolerate it in others. Maybe in a city where nobody walks it might--might--be defensible, but not in a city like San Francisco or Chicago.
I have to admit that I used to when I first got back into bike riding, but have since quit. Once I started riding in the street, I never looked back to riding on the sidewalks. It's safer for many, many reasons, and faster. Of course my reason for riding on sidewalks back then in the first place was a habit I formed while I was a teen riding my bike all over the place, even on busy streets, so I just always took to the sidewalk whenever there was one. Ironically, my street doesn't have them, and they're fairly rare on the smaller residential streets in this area. It's funny, but it's actually most of the suburban subdivisions now that have sidewalks everywhere. Of course no one uses them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tredici
The guy has a point though, it's not exactly a great choice if you're wearing a suit or dress.
I disagree. I saw a cute girl riding a bike last summer in a sun dress. It was awesome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan
bikes are invisible to the CPD, i guess they're just too busy contending with real crime to be bothered with writing up traffic tickets to cyclists.
I rode up to the convenience store in my neighborhood last week, and I saw this middle aged guy who looked like Neil Young pushing a beach cruiser with a gasoline engine on it up to the gas pumps. After I came out of the store I rode over to him to ask him about his bike. He said he loves it, it gets 100 miles to a tank, goes 35 mph, and he never gets bugged by the cops. I actually asked him if the police ever give him trouble. He said no, never, and that it was part of the point of having it. All you have to have on your bikes here are lights. And yes, the police do apparently enforce that. They don't bug you about anything else though.

By the way, Austin is in the process of designing a few "bike boulevards" in downtown. They're really just wider bike lanes coupled with some other traffic slowing measures.

If you're interested in reading up on it, here are some articles.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/conte...eces_bicy.html

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...et-183748.html

http://www.austin360.com/blogs/conte...logs_road_rash
__________________
Blue Leader, this is Troll Fighter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2010, 9:29 PM
niwell's Avatar
niwell niwell is offline
sick transit, gloria
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Brockton Village, Toronto
Posts: 8,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
I'm generally laissez-faire about urban cycling practices--I average about 15 miles per day, all of it in central SF--but I absolutely detest sidewalk cycling. I never do it, and I refuse to tolerate it in others. Maybe in a city where nobody walks it might--might--be defensible, but not in a city like San Francisco or Chicago.
I can tolerate it in some cases in the suburbs such as northern Keele St in Toronto. It's fairly narrow, has a high volume of truck traffic and next to nobody on the sidewalks. Also with the proviso that anyone doing this ride much more slowly than usual. Even a hardcore bike activist friend of mine rode on the sidewalk for a short stretch of this roadway to get to our suburban University (this is a person who taught cycling safety classes and is usually vehemently opposed to sidewalk riding).

But anywhere in the central city? No freaking way. I'm always tempted to push people over when they bike past me on sidewalks near my place. I ride on the streets all the time and it's both faster and safer than the sidewalk despite the lack of a bike lane. Although the media in this city often portrays cyclists as young people with complete disregard for the law the average sidewalk cyclist I see is over 50.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 240glt View Post
Cities figure they'll just run a bike route down a quiet side street without thinking about the implications to someone trying to actually get anywhere on a bike. ROutes like this may be fine for my folks who toodle along on their city cruisers at a liesurely pace, but when I ride my road bike I put on anywhere between 50 & 100k's in a session. Hard to do when you're stopping every 30 seconds, & it sounds like that's what may be happenning in your case
Yep. People who don't commute by bike tend to think that bike lanes on side streets are an excellent idea. One of Toronto's mayoral candidates seems to be basing his entire platform on this. The reality of course is that it's far faster to use major streets - for the same reason it's faster to drive places on them. Even in older areas with grid patterns you have to contend with frequents stops. What's even worse is having to cross a major street from a minor one since usually there aren't any lights and you have to wait for the gap. On a major road any dangerous crossing has lights.

I feel the same way about recreational bike paths as well. Some cities love to brag about what great cycling infrastructure they have due to extensive pathway networks (Calgary and Ottawa come to mind). Pathways are great for weekend rides, but often don't follow the fastest way to get anywhere when it comes to commuting. For example in Ottawa it took me around 20 minutes to get downtown on-street but over 30 by taking the river pathway.

Not saying that pathway systems or side-street lanes shouldn't exist (they should), just that cities can't rely on them as primary cycling infrastructure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2010, 9:40 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Miami of Canada
Posts: 19,389
^ your post makes me smile because i commute 30 miles everyday using chicago's lakefront bike path and side street bike lane systems, though once i'm in evanston i stick to the major streets. people think side streets are slow to ride on because you have to stop at every block, but in chicago i only stop if there are other cars at the intersection, but if there are no cars, then i roll right through because all chicago side street intersections are all way stops. my one way ride is 15 miles and i can do it anywhere from 50-65 minutes depending on a few major traffic lights and, most importantly, wind. so that's still a 14-18 mph overall average, which is good for urban bike commuting.

and if anyone wants to bring their bike to chicago and attempt to bike the stretch of sheridan road in question, you'll quickly see that it's a bit of a special case and that it is not just any old ordinary busy street. it's a freaking zoo at rush hours because of the overwhelming crush of cars trying to get on and off LSD right there at hollywood.
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2010, 10:44 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 17,836
Quote:
the city has made it so cyclists must use the much calmer side streets immediately to the west of sheridan that have dedicated bike lanes.
That's OK then.

Sidewalk cycling is legal in DC except downtown. I find it acceptable if there isn't a good alternative, but far less preferable than safe street riding. For example, I live on 17th Street, which is one-way in the south direction. If I'm going north I will use the sidewalk, because 16th Street is too busy with cars and buses to be safe, and 18th Street has a nasty, unsafe intersection with Connecticut Avenue that is best avoided. The alleys, unfortunately, are perpendicular. The generally wide sidewalk on 17th is the safest place for me to be, provided I slow down and give peds the right-of-way.
__________________
BeyondDC: blog | twitter | flickr | instagram | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2010, 10:52 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 44,966
What about main streets that allow parking...

On one hand we know that cars wouldn't be driving in those lanes but then there are those unexpected doors opening on you and stuff.
__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2010, 11:02 PM
240glt's Avatar
240glt 240glt is offline
HVAC guru
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: EDM ->->-> Okanagan
Posts: 10,523
^ I ride on main streets with parallel parking all the time.. the trick is to ride out from the parked cars enough that you have some clearance if someone swings their door open quickly. It helps if you can ride with the flow of traffic (IE when it's congested and I'm travelling the same pace as cars, I ride right smack in the cente of the lane)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2010, 11:27 PM
niwell's Avatar
niwell niwell is offline
sick transit, gloria
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Brockton Village, Toronto
Posts: 8,031
I find main streets with side parking (ie: 4 lanes but the 2 curb lanes have parking) are far better to bike on. Getting doored is always a concern, but one I feel is considerably overplayed. You need to keep your wits about you and not be afraid to ride near the edge of the lane.

For example, the east-west road I often (Dundas St W) has street parking for most of its length and I've never had any problems. On a few occasions I've ridden on King St W twhich prohibits street parking to allow for a full 4 lanes of traffic. It's far more dangerous having speeding cars / trucks right beside you than looking out for the odd door.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2010, 11:30 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
more brains
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 46,738
This just happened in San Antonio the other day.

Quote:
Web Posted: 02/22/2010 8:59 CST
Man riding bicycle collides with car

By Michelle Mondo - Express-News


A man riding on a motorized bicycle on the sidewalk in the Northeast Side was flown to a hospital Monday after he slammed into a woman's car, smashing his head through a window.

The man on the bike collided with the passenger side door. Officers at the scene said riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is illegal.

...
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc..._with_car.html
__________________
Blue Leader, this is Troll Fighter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2010, 11:32 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 17,836
Interesting that it says "cyclist collides with car" rather than "driver of car collides with bike". From the (very) brief description, it sounds like the woman driving the car didn't look before she turned, which would make it her fault.

Anyway, if you are biking in the street and there isn't a bike lane (marked or unmarked), it is definitely safer to be in the middle of the lane. If there isn't enough room for a car to pass safely, it shouldn't pass at all.
__________________
BeyondDC: blog | twitter | flickr | instagram | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2010, 11:44 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
more brains
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 46,738
It wasn't her fault though. The idiot was riding a bicycle on the sidewalk with an engine on it that can go up to 35 mph. That is exactly the reason why riding bikes on sidewalks is a bad idea. It's not her fault. She wasn't looking on the sidewalk for a person riding a bike, because that's not where they belong. Especially not when they're able to go as fast as cars do. I'm familiar with that stretch of road. It's 4 lanes of traffic, plus a turning lane, with speed limits around 40 to 45 mph mph. Those are acceptable conditions for a bicycle with an engine.
__________________
Blue Leader, this is Troll Fighter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2010, 11:51 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 17,836
Do you have more information than is in that article? If not, you are jumping to all sorts of pro-car/anti-cyclist conclusions.

1. It doesn't matter whether they were cyclists or not. They could have been pedestrians. It doesn't make any difference if the driver pulled in without looking to see if anyone was on the sidewalk.

2. Just because a bike has a motor does not mean the person is using the motor. A motorized bike is not the same as a motorcycle, nor even a scooter. Many people who have them leave the motor turned off except when they need a special boost (like when going up hills). It's possible the bike rider was using his motor inappropriately, but that information is not in the article.
__________________
BeyondDC: blog | twitter | flickr | instagram | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2010, 12:02 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
more brains
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 46,738
I have 11 bicycles and ride every day, so I'm not anti-cyclist. I'm actually anti-car, I'm just saying the guy shouldn't have been on the sidewalk. I'll admit, that I haven't rode a bike on that street, so I'm not sure what it's like on a bicycle, and I might even be inclined to take to the sidewalks if it wasn't good for bike riding. But if I had a motorized bicycle (I badly want one actually), then I would definitely ride it on the street, not the sidewalk. That stretch of road is also relatively level with few, if any hills. So maintaining a reasonable speed shouldn't be a big deal.
__________________
Blue Leader, this is Troll Fighter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2010, 12:21 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Dooring is the #1 cause of cyclist injury-accidents. Here in California, dooring is *always* the motorist's fault, even if done by a passenger. That's why cabbies don't want you entering/exiting on the left, and won't unlock the back doors until all is clear.

We don't really have bike lanes in San Francisco--there are a few here and there, but the NIMBYs have prevented their installation for years and years now and motorists block them where they do exist--so we don't face the bike lane/door zone conundrum as often as riders in more progressive cities. California law allows cyclists full use of the lane when riding to the side is unsafe, and dooring is certainly a danger, so you'll see cyclists a bit farther out on most SF streets.

And Kevin--11 bikes? What a junkie!
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:29 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.