159 replies to this topic

[TreeHuggingLiberal]

Thought I heard someone call my name so I thought I'd reply. Although "anonymous" must have me confused with someone else because I originated in Santa Cruz, not Davis!

[cybertrano]

Santa Cruz is nice, why Folsom?

[TreeHuggingLiberal]

Too many like mined people in Santa Cruz. I needed a challenge!

[Stephen]

TreeHugger:

Are you for real, or did you just log in to stir commotion?

By the way, Berkeley is nice too.

[Steve Heard]

Tony, Sibley, et al

I have to admit that you have very valid arguments. Yes, it is against the law to stop and drop off or pick up your kids in the bike lane where it is marked 'no stopping'.

I feel terrible for the people who see no other practical choice.

Those who want the law enforced are quick to judge the parents as lazy or selfish, yet I've not met any who believe they are. They believe that they are doign their best, and the best thing for their kids.

Tony, you ask how many entrances are enough. It's not that there aren't enough access points, it's that the only two that we do have are on major arteries, with no parking for blocks and no drop off points along the way. One of the parking lots is small, crowded with the students who do walk, who do take the bus, and who have to cross Iron Point and find their parents, either stopped illegally, or blocking traffic in the neighborhood off of Grover. You often find police cars blocking the entrance to that parking lot, I believe at the request of the school. They are concerned about staff parking and the safety of the hundreds of kids who leave via that exit. The other lot features a traffic circle that is always backed up. Where does the traffic go? It spills onto the streets, that's where.

At most other schools, one can circle the block. Here, there isn't a block to circle. At other schools, parents can drop their kids off down the street. Here, the 'no stopping' zone is easily a mile long.

It's easy to condemn these parents as selfish scofflaws, but you are not in their shoes. You seem willing to set them out on the streets, no matter the distance, the weather, the load they have to carry, where they'll have to cross these major streets with nutty drivers, all in the name of keeping the under used bike lanes clear. It's like you are saying, 'To heck with you and your kids'.

You're 'let them eat cake' attitude is really what is selfish.

I think we've kicked the life out of this subject, as both sides are becoming ever so repetitious.

If anyone has anything new to add, please do.

[Sibley Resident]

I appreciate the fact that you feel I have valid points but I certainly do not appreciate the personal attacks. I have never said these parents are selfish or anything else you said. I feel for these parents to a certain degree about their situation but it’s limited because they are blatantly breaking the law and setting bad examples for all of our children. If they were doing something to help themselves or change the situation then I would be happy to support them in their efforts. As far as practical choices, breaking the law to suit your own purposes is not a practical choice, however trying to change something that you see is wrong is a choice and a good choice and sets fantastic examples for everyone. As far as the statement to heck with you and your kids, I take great offense to that. I have had this city & its residents, the so called community I live in tell me how irrelevant my family’s safety is or my daughter’s safety is compared to everyone else’s precious time. I would never ever suggest that anyone’s safety or his or her children’s safety is less important than my safety or time as been suggested here. Apparently the few children that do walk or ride their bikes safety isn’t as important because they are only the few and not the majority. I guess the one child that has to swerve out of the bike lane because their is a vehicle sitting on it, safety isn't important and therefore does not justify trying to work within the system to find a solution to the problem for both sides, providing safety for everyone, rather than saying the heck with your safety or your children’s safety because your just the minority. I'm sure that if this one child was anyone of these parents children, they would not be so readily accepting of others jeopardizing their childs safety, who was following the law by being in the bike lane so others can break it by stopping their vehicles there.

How dare you call me selfish, the problems these parents are having is serious to them, I have no doubt about that. When anything threatens your family and their safety it is serious. However, I would not sacrifice the few for the majority, I would do exactly as I have suggested and try and change it (as I have in regards to several things in this city). Anyone of these parents can make up a flyer and stand their on the curb and hand it to every parent that stops there asking them to contact them and get a group together to come up with some valid solutions for everyone and to work with the school and the city. I have only pointed out where I believe they are wrong and have suggested how to do something about it. I know better than anyone about the majority selling out the safety of the minority and believe me it does not feel good and breaks my heart that my family and my daughter is so irrelevant. Try walking a day in my shoes, Remember we just had a child/vehicle accident in this neighborhood on Valentines Day, this isn’t the first time and it will not be the last. I'm far from selfish, I have worked very hard and have sacrificed an enormous amount of my time, my money and even my home for meetings to work within the system to change things in this city not only for myself or my family but for others. I would never sacrifice anyone else’s safety.

[Steve Heard]

Sibley

1000 apologies. I made the common mistake of lumping you in with the others in this thread who have used the language I was referring to, at least two of whom has suggested more than once that the kids should walk.

You know what traffic is like just on your street. Imagine if your daughter had to walk or ride her bike to FHS from Sibley. She'd have to cross Blue Ravine and Iron Point to get there, with people driving like they're nuts, on their way to work. Again, my apologies. My daughter has friends who live on your street, and I've seen the way people whip around the corners and down the street, trying to get to/from Glenn, Blue Ravine, and Lembi, looking for that elusive shortcut.

I don't want to risk the safety of a child who may happen to bike to work (check out the bike rack at the school and you'll see there are a couple), but walking across town can be just as dangerous, if not moreso.

Tony, I was a cyclist, but am currently bikeless, so I do know the dangers. I also know that bikers are not immune to traffic rudeness, as many seem to have an elitist attitude, and treat the bike lane as if it is there for them to train for the Tour-de-France, and they resent slower bikers, recreational bikers, and yes, kids on their way to school.

[Sibley Resident]

I greatly appreciate your last posting. Thank You, I do agree that my family and my daughter’s safety is at serious jeopardy in this neighborhood. However, there is another topic section for this so I won’t continue belaboring the point here. Hopefully, those of us that disagree on this one topic can all agree to disagree and try and respect each other’s points of views. Getting back to the subject at hand. I think this one has already been said but it really makes me mad.

People who block intersections instead of waiting to see if there is enough room for them, In turn causing the next bunch of people to have to try and drive around them or generally have to wait again.

[tony]

steve: I will never apologize for suggesting that high school children who live within a mile or two of school walk there. It's good for them on many levels. To the extent that it is not safe to bike or walk, drivers with bad etiquette (an awfully nice term for it, incidentally) are substantially responsible, but so are a lack of appropriate facilities. I have been actively working for more than five years to help make it safer. And while I can't take credit for the fact that there are bike lanes in front of the high school, they and many other facilities that you call "underutilized" are there because the citizens of Folsom have made it a priority to make our city as safe for bikes and pedestrains as possible (although it is sometimes hard to tell). And while I'd love to agree to disagree, it astounds me that you think the same young adults who are allowed to drive (or are within a year or two of that age) are not capable of saefly crossing a major arterial, even with bad drivers. If not in high school then when will they be allowed to walk across a street? To my knowledge, there are no Pedestrian 101 classes in college.

And yes, there are cyclists with bad etiquette, too. We're working on them too. THey make it more dangerous for the restof us, just like the bad drivers do.

[tessieca]

Tony, a ways back you said something about people trying to keep bikers on the trails and off the roads. That's just a bit paranoid. I am a biker, and I definitely prefer trails where they exist. The more, the merrier, and Folsom does a good job. My point was that it helps to keep the bikers and pedestrians separated from the cars as much as possible (not forcing you to do so if you want to maintain your legal right to be treated the same as any other vehicle on the roadways).

You also asked if I was referring to the new high school tunnel. I was not. That one exists, as noted. There was one originally planned to cross under Iron Point just east of the school. I don't know the details of why it fell to the wayside, but at this point it will likely never be funded/built.

[Steve Heard]

Tony

The solution to this problem is a simple one:

Allow parents to stop in front of the school twice a day, and reduce the speed limit in front of the schools.

That way, bikers won't lose the bike lanes, and parents won't be put in the position of having to break the law.

That seems like a fair compromise, don't you think?

[tony]

Steve:
No, it does not seem like a fair compromise. You don't seem to accept the fact the most important time to have the bike lanes is when traffic is the heaviest and when studetns are likely to be biking to school, exactly when you want to use them for drop-off and pick-up. Also, the speed limit is already 25 mph during the drop-off/pick-up period and absolutely no-one pays any attention. And, not coincidentally, no one has even attempted to defend this disregard for the law. Why reward people for bad behavior? As Sibley Resident said, waht kind of example do we set when we do that, and when we put the convenience of parents above teh safety of their children.

Tessieca, while most people, myself included, prefer to use trails when possible, my point was that some people really do want to keep bikes off the road entirely. And many people assume that because we have a pretty good system of bike trails in Folsom, it's not important to make the streets safe for cycling. But the trails are only marginally useful for "utilitarian" cycling. They generally won't get you particularly close to where you want to go without at least some travel on streets. And the streets will almost always be the fastest way to get to from point A to point B. People bicycling for transportation are just like motorists in that they will take the shortest or easiest route to get to their destination, and that usually requires at least some travel on arterial streets, which is why almost all of them in Folsom have bike lanes.

The other thing about trails is that people blithely assume they are safer than streets, but that is often not the case. Busy bike trails have a much wider range of users and speeds than roads. On the trail there are walkers, joggers, rollerbladers, kids on tricycles, horses, dogs and bikes with the fastest users moving 10 to 15 times the speed of the slowest. On the road there are cars, trucks, motorcycles and bikes, with an occasional pedestrain at intersections, and the fastest speeding cars are still traveling only about 5 times as fast as the average bicyclist. The other major factor is that most users of bike trails don't recognize the potentila dangers and therefore are not as careful as bicyclists riding in the street. The same applies to riding on sidewalks, which is generally a very bad idea, not to mention against the law, except for small children.

Thanks for teh clarification on the UC. I wasn't aware that there was one planned earlier, but one will certainly never be built if you start with the assumption that it won't. An undercrossing or overcrossing would cost roughly $1M. While there amy not be much money around right now, things can change quickly, and there is still money out there to be found. I've actually discussed this possibility with city staff over the past year. With a little support from the school district and the parents, it could easily become a reality. The only sure thing is taht it won't happen if nobody tries.

[john]

I think bike lanes are OK as long as the bikers actually adhere to the laws themselves. I doubt hard-core bikers like yourself do, but I can't tell you how many times I've seen a biker fly through a stop sign (as if the stop sign doesn't apply to them). One time I saw one almost get hit by a car because of this... then he actually had the nerve to flip the guy off!

But I digress... this thread has seemed to veer off topic. Tony, would you mind starting a new thread pertaining to bicycle safety?

[tony]

John: Sure, lump me in with Larry Flynt!! Actually, I am insulted that you would assume that I am a "hard-core" cyclist and then further assume that that means I blow through stop signs (or did I mis-read your second sentence and you wer actually saying you did not think I ran stop signs like some others? The rest of this response is based on the former interpretation, so I'll apologize now if that was incorrect, as the rest of this response was based on that interpretation). Let's start by saying that I've already acknowledged the presence of scofflaw cyclists, but I would contend that their numbers are comparable (percentage-wise) to the number of scofflaw drvers, especially when it comes to rnuning red lights and stop signs (and of course, the big difference is that when they get in an accident, they are the ones who die, not the motorists they hit, which is not in any way an effort to defend their behavior).

So, how do you define a hard-core cyclist? One who rides lots of miles? One who rides fast? One who ignores traffic laws? One who rides all year in all kinds of weather? one who rides after dark? One who rides a fancy bike wearing technicolor lycra clothing? One who thinks of a bike as more than a recreational toy? One who rides a couple thousand miles a year with his children?

Do you really think I would be so hypocritical as to chastise people for speeding and parking illegally if I was of the mind that as a cyclists I could ignore the law? Try again. If for no other reason that the fact that I have a reputation to uphold as a well-known (and with some luck respected) bicycle advocate in this community, it behooves me to meticulously obey the law on my bike.

As for the definitions, I'll answer my own questions: Yep, more than probably 95% of the cyclists out there, about 4500 miles last year, over 2000 of it commuting. Fast? Well, that's relative. Faster than most, but a racer I will never be at 215 lbs. Scofflaw? Nope, answered that one already. Dedicated? Yep, I was about a dozen days short of averaging almost one ride per day last year, including rainy, windy and freezing days (some of the best riding is along Lake Natoma on 35 degree mornings). At night? Yep, home from work all winter long, with a headlight bright enough to confuse most motorists. I have a nice bike, but it's a workhorse touring bike that most people would not recognize as anything more than a glorified clunker, complete with fenders and mudflaps, but still barely 5% of the cost of our Mazda mini-van. Technicolor lycra? Only to the extent required for comfort (I don't look that good in tights or lycra). Mostly you'll see me in brightly-colored T-shirts or a well-worn, grease-marked yellow goretex jacket. Bike for transportation? You bet! I put more miles on my bike than on my car (yes, I do have a car, and so does my wife). Finally, nearly half of my riding is with my two children (look for a big guy pulling two bike trailers -- they're almost always empty in the evening when you see me on the road) either taking them to day care or riding to parks all over eastern Sacramento County on the weekends.

But, hey, enough about me, me , me.

A new thread? Where to start? Hmmm.

[john]

I think you mis-read. What I meant to say is that I doubt you were in that category since you are obviously a bicycle advocate.

PS - did Larry Flynt get parylized from a bike accident or something?...