I¹ve almost hit squirrels and chipmunks quite often on the SW Path, and a friend of mine got in a wreck on the path when a squirrel got itself entwined in his bike wheel on the path. However, I¹m not sure that there would be much danger from these two animals at night. They are out in the daytime. And they do dart out.
Mary Mullen On 9/28/12 3:20 PM, "Robert F. Nagel" <[email protected]> wrote: > Right, I left that out because it seems to go without saying that my proposal > will not be as bright as yours. But, the question should be is whether it's > bright enough or a whole lot brighter than nothing. There's a hornet's nest of > opposition to your proposal because it's too bright. It's overkill. If > somebody would rather take the sidewalk because it's brighter, they'll still > have that option. I've never heard of roadkill on the bikepaths. Are there > really bike-animal accidents happening because of animal dart-outs? The > bunnies I've seen seem to be pretty well-adapted to urban living and don't > seem to have a problem getting across the path safely. And if things keep > going the way the are, there won't be any lights and won't that be a whole lot > less safe than some subtle lights? > --- > > > Robert F. Nagel, Attorney > Law Offices of Robert Nagel > [email protected] > www.nagel-law.com <http://www.nagel-law.com> > Thirty on the Square, 10th Floor > 30 W. Mifflin St., Suite 1001 > Madison, WI 53703 > 608-255-1501 office > 608-255-1504 fax > 608-438-9501 cell > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Robbie Webber <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Robert seems to have left out part of my answer to him: >> >> Besides being more expensive and possibly prone to damage, whether >> intentional or not, >> >> 3. This area has basically no ambient light (from streetlights, houses, >> businesses, etc.) Smaller lights would not provide sufficient illumination to >> light the path and provide a feeling of safety. The path you mention has >> considerable ambient light from other sources, so lights to illuminate the >> path and general area are not as necessary. >> >> Robert had mentioned the path that runs along the Yahara River. That area has >> considerable ambient light: businesses, street lights, lights in the mooring >> area on the river, park lights towards Lake Monona, etc. The SW Path has none >> of that. This also addresses one of the other suggestions on this list: light >> the edges of the path. >> >> Lighting the ASPHALT or GROUND does not provide the appropriate amount of >> light to see the area adjacent to the path - where animals or humans may dart >> out suddenly. We do not use runway lights along the sides of sidewalks and >> streets. We light the area so that people walking or driving can see the area >> immediately off the sidewalk or street. This is the reason I use a >> high-powered light with a broad beam pattern: The LED lights, regardless of >> how many LEDs they add, simply do not provide the field of view that I want >> while biking in a dark area. (A broad beam pattern also makes me more visible >> to drivers on side streets as I approach, but that is a different issue.) >> >> Most of our neighbors, friends, and family would freak out if they had to >> walk down a dark street, why are we assuming that biking or walking down a >> dark path - with even fewer people around to provide a sense of security - >> would cause any less stress? Those of you with less-confident bicyclists in >> your lives should ask those dear ones to go out, alone, after dark on this >> path. Once your family member, best friend, SO, or other more-timid bicyclist >> returns from the solo trip, ask him/her how it felt to be on the dark path >> alone, even with a good light. >> >> I think this might change your perspective a bit. I know one male friend >> definitely changed his mind after thinking of how his wife - definitely not >> as confident on a bike as he is - would react to that scenario. >> >> >> Robbie Webber >> Transportation Policy Analyst >> State Smart Transportation Initiative >> www.ssti.us <http://www.ssti.us> >> 608-263-9984 (o) >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Robert F. Nagel <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Sounds very sensible to me. What I'm hearing is that the city wants to >>> scatter some bright lights because they think it will be cheaper than the >>> subdued lighting, which would require more poles to provide adequate >>> lighting. They also claim that the shorter poles will be vandalized and hit >>> by snow plows. Why a shorter pole with subdued light would be more likely to >>> be vandalized than a taller pole with bright light that the neighbors hate >>> is totally beyond me. And, I don't think anybody would object to >>> incorporating flags in the design to give additional notice to the snow plow >>> drivers. >>> >>> --- >>> >>> >>> Robert F. Nagel, Attorney >>> Law Offices of Robert Nagel >>> [email protected] >>> www.nagel-law.com <http://www.nagel-law.com> >>> Thirty on the Square, 10th Floor >>> 30 W. Mifflin St., Suite 1001 >>> Madison, WI 53703 >>> 608-255-1501 <tel:608-255-1501> office >>> 608-255-1504 <tel:608-255-1504> fax >>> 608-438-9501 <tel:608-438-9501> cell >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:43 PM, George Perkins <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> When I originally wondered (on this list, to my Alder, and to the City >>>> project site) why the city hasn¹t considered a design that follows the DOT >>>> guidelines for lighting a bike and pedestrian path, I never really did get >>>> a satisfactory answer. The City may have had this discussion internally, >>>> but for whatever reason has not made it a public discussion. If the SW path >>>> is going to be given lighting, then let¹s do it right. The powerpoint >>>> presentation on the project web site only off-handedly indicates bollard >>>> style lamp posts are a maintenance problem, but doesn¹t substantiate that >>>> concern with facts and figures. If there are valid reasons why DOT lighting >>>> guidelines don¹t make sense from an engineering (physical and social), I¹d >>>> like to hear them and the city should lobby to have the DOT guidelines >>>> updated accordingly. Perhaps a good lighting design would cost more and >>>> budgets are tight. Let¹s not do it wrong just to spend the money in this >>>> year¹s budget and wind up with an inferior (or unsafe) result. If doing it >>>> right costs more, maybe the path can be lit in stages, do what you can with >>>> the money on hand, leave the rest until later? >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Bikies mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bikies mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bikies mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
