I second everything that India said, except perhaps more vociferously :) I
usually ride with very bright lights at night (NiteRiders or others than come
with their own battery pack and will blind you if you look straight into them),
and still the visibility on the SW Path is very limited. Besides the issue of
frequent close calls with small non-human mammals, it can be difficult to see
humans/large objects who/that are on the path but not directly in the beam of
light, or who are on the edge of the beam of light in dark/non-reflective
clothing. It's especially a problem on sections of the path that are on a
slight
curve - which is a third to half of the path between Hammersley and Crazy Legs,
if I'm any good at estmating (which I may not be).
Kathryn Kingsbury
www.kathrynkingsbury.com
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/kathrynkingsbury
Skype: kathryn.kingsbury
________________________________
From: India Viola <[email protected]>
To: Michael Lemberger <[email protected]>
Cc: Bikies ListServe <[email protected]>
Sent: Sat, December 3, 2011 10:51:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Bikies] SW Path controversy
Michael,
This is just my opinion, and I'm open to hear the counter argument.
I don't use this path regularly at night, but when I took a class out at
Research Park I found myself on it once a week in the dark.
I have standard issue bike lights- the kind that light me up and also light up
a
small portion of what is in front of me. They don't have battery packs, they
don't cost more than $20-30 each, and they don't blind oncoming bikes/peds.
I am a very confident cyclist, even at night, but I found myself quite nervous
on the path.
At night there were various path users with varying degrees of lighting.
There were also kids innocuously but completely unlit hanging out on the path.
I could not see more than what my light shown on, and I found myself feeling
like I was using the path at night for transport and there is a somewhat steep
or brambly embankment on either side for a good stretch of it. I couldn't see
well enough to feel that I could maintain a decent speed (not esp fast, just
enough to keep me warm and get me from pt. A to pt. B), especially if it was
rainy.
Reflective paint would be helpful on the sides of the path to see the edges.
I sent out a message back then to Bikies wondering why there wasn't any
lighting
on the path. It makes it feel desolate and unsafe as compared to the paths
downtown and on the east side of town. I think that the same arguments that
are
used for lighting roads within a city can be used for lighting the SW Path. If
the light can be directed onto the path, it would make the path much more user
friendly after dark, which is any time after 4pm these days- well within
regular
commuting hours.
-India
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Michael Lemberger <[email protected]> wrote:
On Dec 2, Steve Goldstein wrote:
>
>> The high volume of traffic on the path is a measure of its success. Many of
>>those enjoying that success are neighbors, including homeowners along the
>>path.
>> My guess is that there's a lot less opposition from homeowners now than
>> there
>>was before the path was built: This path is one of the things that makes the
>>neighborhoods that it passes through attractive.
>>
>> There's clearly a need for widening the path. That need is obvious to
>> anyone
>>who uses it. I think there would be overwhelming support for widening it.
>
>I very much agree with the idea of widening the path (to 10 or 12 feet from
>Commonwealth to the Beltline at a bare minimum...whatever its width current
>width from Breeze to Commonwealth). Use just seems to keep going up,
>particularly with the opening of the Badger trail.
>
>I also agree that there will be enthusiastic support for doing so. At least as
>much, if not more, than there will be opposition. It obviously adds to the
>neighborhoods—something not lost on those looking to sell a home, for example:
>
><http://www.fsbomadison.com/details.asp?ID=15255>
>
>On Dec 2, Robert F. Nagel wrote:
>
>> seems like 1 ped lane ought to be enough, that's all there is by monona
>>terrace, there's even room for people to fish from the ped lane
>
>I agree with this. I don't see why a pedestrian facility would need to be
>directional. Seems like two five-foot bike lanes and a five-foot pedestrian
>lane
>ought to be plenty. I'm curious what the best-practice recommendation or
>standard would be?
>
>For what it's worth, I oppose lighting this path. I'm curious what the
>arguments
>are in favor...is there anything posted on line that enumerates them?
>
>Michael Lemberger
>Madison
>_______________________________________________
>Bikies mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
>
--
WeAreAllMechanics.com
[email protected]
Stay connected- Follow WAAM on Facebook
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
