Phaedrus wrote: "I've tried the sidewalks on those bridges but they really aren't wide enough to be safe for pedestrians and bicyclists unless you're moving REALLY slow. A lot of peds use headphones as well which is a problem if you're coming up behind them."
JM: Well, ya gotta choose your poison. I don't mind varying my speed in order to get the separation from traffic. I don't like the sidewalk on the Ford Bridge because the traffic comes so close and the sidewalk sits so high, but the separation of traffic is worth it, so I go as fast as I can when there isn't pedestrian traffic and then I slow way down or even stop when a walker is passing by. After all, I'm after safety and so are they, so we are comrades. But if ya GOTTA have constant high speed, then I suppose you risk the crazy drivers on the street. By the way, I do ride practically in the gutter. I am unaware of what you call "debris" but whatever that means, it hasn't done me any harm so far. If I have to come to a stop behind a bus, well I stop well back and even hoist my bike OFF the street for the moment. My point is that with sensible compromises, urban riding does not have to be unsafe. Bruce Gaarder wrote: "Bikes on sidewalks can cause intersection problems if they approach the intersection at a speed much above a walk. Drivers are looking for pedestrians and a bike (or runner) can enter the intersection between a driver's scans and expectations of when the person might reach the intersection. Somebody who was 30 feet away from the intersection can be in it whereas a walker would still be 10 feet away." "I would like to see the US follow the example of the Netherlands and Germany and require true bike riding training and licensing, just as I would like to see considerably better auto driver training and licensing." JM: OK, Bruce, your point is taken. BUT it doesn't matter where you ride, a different kind of circumspection is necessary for safety. Some parents will just buy a bike and let the kid learn the hard way. And then when something goes wrong, they look for someone to point the finger at. Let's face it, not enough kids are sufficiently afraid of death and injury. And being on a bike is one of the most vulnerable things on the roads. Oddly, I never took life so much for granted that I took chances on my bike. My lifelong history of avoiding injury is probably a result of that. Plus, I know that when I'm on a sidewalk, I could hurt pedestrians, so my urge to speed is well-controlled. But don't forget the original claim that only crazy, desperate people would ride a bike in an urban setting. And I say only a CAREFUL, prudent person would do so for long. The other kind you find in SUVs where they are the DANGER, not the vulnerable one. Bikes are super for the environment, but you can't just slam around wherever you want at any speed you want as if you were behind the wheel of an SUV. And parents shouldn't let their kids go off on a bike without telling them in no uncertain terms that they could get hurt or killed and NOT to race up to an intersection and go across without total awareness of the environment at the crossing. By the way, there also is a law that if you approach a pedestrian, a bike rider must make an audible sound to let them know the bike is approaching. I carry a bobby's whistle with me for that purpose. And I blow it well before the two of us come together. David Wilson wrote: "I would hope that a mayor with such a distinguished background in public relations, that the city departments responsible for public works would take Public Relations 101 and schedule their work with that in mind." JM: David you must realize that the scapegoat in every case is the person who didn't move their car. I doubt that you'll get sympathy anywhere but in the line at the impound lot, and not even all of them. BUT I would like to know WHY I can get junk phone calls for this and that (despite the legal prohibition) but I CAN'T get a junk phone call from the streets department to the effect that cars will have to be moved this morning. I, naturally, park my car in the garage all the time, but I do so marvel at the endless repetition of the same failure to effectively communicate stuff. We have SO much technology today it should be a piece of cake. But I also know from my employment down there that they'd call me impractical for suggesting it till someone with a lot of clout suggested it and then do it as if they had been for trying it all along. Wizardmarks wrote: ": Little signs were hung on wire across streets announcing the speed which would keep a driver from stopping for lights. Look up, see "29.5 mph" proceed as instructed. It was confined to "through streets" and to highways in and out of the city (pre-freeway). Worked pretty well, so long" JM: Cretin in St Paul had the same sign until just recently. Never saw another one anywhere and now I don't see it on Cretin. To me, the posted limit should get you through as many stoplights as possible if things are set up right. About the Access Project: The discussion just shows me why political input should be LIMITED to how to accomplish traffic goals. Once you get other considerations allowed, it just goes bananas and you end up with pure irrationality. ===== Jim Mork Cooper Neighborhood Minneapolis ------------- Paul Wellstone: Best friend Minneapolis ever had in Washington. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@;mnforum.org Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
