Jump to content






Photo

Bicycle parking on Sutter Street


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#46 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 16 April 2010 - 02:20 PM

QUOTE (mylo @ Apr 16 2010, 03:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It's also a lot more expensive to replace a broken window than a stolen water bottle. In pure risk mitigation, it's much smarter to keep an eye on your car than your bicycle.


You're such a goof. Okay. I'll play.

I'm no expert, but I do believe there are bicycles out there that cost much more than a car window. Not mine, but there are others who do - the type of people that might ride from Sacto to Folsom on a weekend.

A lot of thefts are crimes of opportunity. If you've gone to the trouble to lock your car door, they aren't going to risk making noise breaking your car window for a water bottle, unless perhaps they have an alcohol problem and they some how think it's fill with Smirnoff.

We obviously aren't all that worried about our cars because we don't keep them imprisoned in our garages and park them in parking lots all the time and even in our driveways. I would never leave my bicycle parked in my driveway, but I do lock it up in the garage.

#47 chris v

chris v

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broadstone

Posted 16 April 2010 - 02:24 PM

My 11 year old sons bicycle costs more than a car window... rolleyes.gif

#48 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 16 April 2010 - 02:28 PM

You went from damage/vandelism to full theft. Someone stealing a car will cost more than someone stealing a bicycle (yes, expensive bicycle maps to expensive car, where average bike <= average car).

If you don't want your car stolen, lock it. If you don't want your bike stolen, lock it to something.

Equal locking for all!
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#49 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 16 April 2010 - 02:33 PM

QUOTE (mylo @ Apr 16 2010, 03:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You went from damage/vandelism to full theft. Someone stealing a car will cost more than someone stealing a bicycle (yes, expensive bicycle maps to expensive car, where average bike <= average car).

If you don't want your car stolen, lock it. If you don't want your bike stolen, lock it to something.

Equal locking for all!


Either one can happen - theft or vandalism. It's just that it's a lot harder to walk away with a car. There is the whole ignition thing that would require a higher level of intelligence that's not required to steal a bicycle. Snap the bike lock, and you're gone.

#50 Terry

Terry

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,425 posts

Posted 17 April 2010 - 01:19 PM

QUOTE (tony @ Apr 16 2010, 09:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
More to the point, I don't understand why people are so hostile to the idea of providing basic amenities for cyclists (they are, after all, required by the city's zoning code). Bike racks are cheap: a rack to park 2 bikes costs a couple hundred dollars installed,



I think I can help you to understand people being hostile to amenities for cyclists. It's the sense of entitlement we non-bicyclists perceive bicylists to have. It is a rarity for me to see a bicyclist stop at a stop sign, ride fully within the established bike lanes, properly yield to other vehicles and follow rules of the road as per California vehicle code. As for trail riding in Folsom, bicyclists more often than not want to claim the trails as their own, failing to recognize the speed limits on the trails (max 15 mph) and yield signs posted that require them to give way to pedestrians and equestrians. For every single bicyclist I see that follows the rules, on-road and off, I see ten who don't. You really need to do some education of your fellow bicyclists so that they aren't their own worst enemies in the "image" department.

Anyone else want to chime in on their perceptions?

#51 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 17 April 2010 - 01:47 PM

I almost hit two cyclists on a 1/4 mile drive today. One even glared me down for almost killing him after he ran a stop sign.
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#52 tony

tony

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Historic District

Posted 19 April 2010 - 07:56 AM

QUOTE (Terry @ Apr 17 2010, 02:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think I can help you to understand people being hostile to amenities for cyclists. It's the sense of entitlement we non-bicyclists perceive bicylists to have. It is a rarity for me to see a bicyclist stop at a stop sign, ride fully within the established bike lanes, properly yield to other vehicles and follow rules of the road as per California vehicle code. As for trail riding in Folsom, bicyclists more often than not want to claim the trails as their own, failing to recognize the speed limits on the trails (max 15 mph) and yield signs posted that require them to give way to pedestrians and equestrians. For every single bicyclist I see that follows the rules, on-road and off, I see ten who don't. You really need to do some education of your fellow bicyclists so that they aren't their own worst enemies in the "image" department.

Anyone else want to chime in on their perceptions?

First, I'll stipulate that the bicyclists you see flaunting the law are a major public relations (and safety) problem for those of us who don't and for those of us promoting bicycling for all the good it does. And yes, we at FABA and SABA do educate cyclists on a regular basis (I taught two lunchtime bike commute safety classes just last week). We teach bike safety at schools, through employers and in a 9-hour Traffic Skills class.

That said, I still don't see how that has anything to do with providing adequate bike parking in the Historic District? Should we not provide any automobile parking in the HD because the vast majority of motorists exceed the speed limit on Hwy 50, Iron Point Rd and most residential streets? Should we not allow cars to park on the street because many drivers flaunt the cell phone law or completely ignore the right turn restrictions from Folsom Blvd. when pedestrians and bicyclists are in the crosswalk along the Folsom parkway Rail Trail? And I would contend that the number of bicyclists who don't stop for stop signs almost rivals the number of motorists who make right turns on red without stopping.

Yes, there is a problem with scofflaw cyclists, but before y'all start throwing stones, take a look in the mirror. Oh, and BTW, last time I checked, cyclists killed on average zero motorists each year, while motorists kill about 700 cyclists every year (and, I know, the motorists are not always at fault) in the US (and that's not to mention the 5,000 [looked up the number and corrected it] pedestrians and nearly 40,000 other motorists they kill). Do cyclists have a sense of entitlement? Perhaps we do; we feel that we have the right to safely use our city streets as dictated by the CVC. Does that have anything to do with provisions for bike parking in the HD? Nope, unless you're stretching for justification for an untenable position.

Admit it; the sense of entitlement really belongs to the motoring majority who find it inconvenient to occasionally have to slow down and share "their" roads, or worse, "their" parking spaces with bicyclists. Remember, their are somewhere between 4 and 7 parking spaces per car in the US - and almost all of them are provided at no cost to the driver. Try charging for parking in the HD and you'll see who has a sense of entitlement.

#53 tony

tony

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Historic District

Posted 19 April 2010 - 08:02 AM

QUOTE (mylo @ Apr 17 2010, 02:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I almost hit two cyclists on a 1/4 mile drive today. One even glared me down for almost killing him after he ran a stop sign.

I can match you anecdote for anecdote. Within 500 feet of home (crossing Folsom Blvd. from Forrest Street to Natoma Street) on my morning commute today I had to deal with a motorist who did what many traffic signals when they see a cyclist coming on a fresh green light - in lieu of stopping for the right turn on red, which would have resulted in him having to go after me and the car behind me, he instead hit the gas pedal and blew through the red light at about 20 mph. This happens almost every day at this intersection.

So, I guess we shouldn't let motorists park their cars in Folsom, since they are clearly all scofflaws. Right?

#54 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 19 April 2010 - 08:07 AM

QUOTE (tony @ Apr 19 2010, 09:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I can match you anecdote for anecdote. Within 500 feet of home (crossing Folsom Blvd. from Forrest Street to Natoma Street) on my morning commute today I had to deal with a motorist who did what many traffic signals when they see a cyclist coming on a fresh green light - in lieu of stopping for the right turn on red, which would have resulted in him having to go after me and the car behind me, he instead hit the gas pedal and blew through the red light at about 20 mph. This happens almost every day at this intersection.

So, I guess we shouldn't let motorists park their cars in Folsom, since they are clearly all scofflaws. Right?

I agree. Folsom (and California, and the USA in general) drivers are horrible.

But you seem to have forgotten how we got here. We were talking about how the bicyclist sense of entitlement leads to a negative view of all cyclists which in turn leads to people not willing to specially accommodate (beyond that required by law).

This isn't about whether parking bikes is legal or not. It's about how far we (the people) should extend ourselves to appease them.

I say, partially tainted by negative image of Folsom cyclists, that all bikes should park in designated spots in or around the parking garage. Just like all the cars with their bad drivers. Keep them as far away from the sidewalks and busy intersections as possible.

There's tons of space, walking distance to everything. Everyone should be happy. Unless they're over-entitled b!@#$es who feel they deserve to keep one finger on their overpriced huffy at all times, no matter how inconvenient it is for other residents, the city, or the business owners.
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#55 tony

tony

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Historic District

Posted 19 April 2010 - 08:15 AM

QUOTE (mylo @ Apr 19 2010, 09:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I agree. Folsom (and California, and the USA in general) drivers are horrible.

But you seem to have forgotten how we got here. We were talking about how the bicyclist sense of entitlement leads to a negative view of all cyclists which in turn leads to people not willing to specially accommodate (beyond that required by law).

This isn't about whether parking bikes is legal or not. It's about how far we (the people) should extend ourselves to appease them.

I say, partially tainted by negative image of Folsom cyclists, that all bikes should park in designated spots in or around the parking garage. Just like all the cars with their bad drivers. Keep them as far away from the sidewalks and busy intersections as possible.

There's tons of space, walking distance to everything. Everyone should be happy. Unless they're over-entitled b!@#$es who feel they deserve to keep one finger on their overpriced huffy at all times, no matter how inconvenient it is for other residents, the city, or the business owners.

Nice try, but this started with a complaint about removing an on-street car parking spot to provide bike parking equally convenient to that provided by on-street car parking. The parking garage is irrelevant because most of the automobile parking in the district is more convenient than that provided in the garage; that's why it's rarely even close to full. When the RR Block is built out, that will presumably change, as the garage will be very convenient for much of that development. And, as I mentioned before, there is currently no bike parking in the parking garage, anyway. Some day, when that becomes available, perhaps you can use that as an argument.


#56 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 19 April 2010 - 08:25 AM

QUOTE (tony @ Apr 19 2010, 09:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Nice try, but this started with a complaint about removing an on-street car parking spot to provide bike parking equally convenient to that provided by on-street car parking. The parking garage is irrelevant because most of the automobile parking in the district is more convenient than that provided in the garage; that's why it's rarely even close to full. When the RR Block is built out, that will presumably change, as the garage will be very convenient for much of that development. And, as I mentioned before, there is currently no bike parking in the parking garage, anyway. Some day, when that becomes available, perhaps you can use that as an argument.

Yeah, I'm against on-street car parking, too. I understand that as a concession for deliveries. I believe reasonable consideration could be given for an equal number of cyclists. Just along the side of Snooks alone you could probably put as many bike spaces as there will be for cars.

What happened to the grandiose plan for bike racks on the parking garage? Wasn't that always in the design? Is it just not built yet?

I think that little store-front thing could be a good little bike shop, too.

Personally, I almost always park in the parking garage. I think the only exception is when I'm aiming for the East side of Riley.
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#57 tony

tony

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Historic District

Posted 19 April 2010 - 08:46 AM

QUOTE (mylo @ Apr 19 2010, 09:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yeah, I'm against on-street car parking, too. I understand that as a concession for deliveries. I believe reasonable consideration could be given for an equal number of cyclists. Just along the side of Snooks alone you could probably put as many bike spaces as there will be for cars.

What happened to the grandiose plan for bike racks on the parking garage? Wasn't that always in the design? Is it just not built yet?

I think that little store-front thing could be a good little bike shop, too.

Personally, I almost always park in the parking garage. I think the only exception is when I'm aiming for the East side of Riley.

I see an opportunity to end this thread on a positive note (thanks for the invitation). Yes, the NW corner of the garage was reserved as a "bike station", which will primarily provide long-term bike parking for light rail commuters, but with ever advancing digital technology, this may be available for shorter term parking as well. The concept is still in the development phase (there are limited resources in Parks and Rec, and trail building has been a higher priority) and may, indeed, encompass some limited bike shop activities. In the mean time, it's secure storage for the FHDA's pedicabs and FABA's valet bike parking equipment. BTW, being in a corner of the garage, most of the space would not have been useful for car parking anyway.

Your Snooks suggestion is a good one. I think there are two or three racks planned for that location. More would be useful.

#58 Terry

Terry

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,425 posts

Posted 19 April 2010 - 12:48 PM

QUOTE (tony @ Apr 19 2010, 08:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Nice try, but this started with a complaint about removing an on-street car parking spot to provide bike parking equally convenient to that provided by on-street car parking. The parking garage is irrelevant because most of the automobile parking in the district is more convenient than that provided in the garage; that's why it's rarely even close to full. When the RR Block is built out, that will presumably change, as the garage will be very convenient for much of that development. And, as I mentioned before, there is currently no bike parking in the parking garage, anyway. Some day, when that becomes available, perhaps you can use that as an argument.


Tony, look at my post again - I was responding to your comment about "hostility" towards cyclists, you didn't understand it, so I responded to that specific comment. It's not off-thread, so I felt I needed to address your comment.

#59 tony

tony

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Historic District

Posted 25 April 2010 - 09:48 PM

QUOTE (Terry @ Apr 19 2010, 01:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Tony, look at my post again - I was responding to your comment about "hostility" towards cyclists, you didn't understand it, so I responded to that specific comment. It's not off-thread, so I felt I needed to address your comment.

Actually, I don't think I misunderstood at all. I understand that scofflaw cyclists breed hostility and I understand that you were explaining the source of that hostility. What I was questioning is the proportionality and application of that hostility. Here we're discussing the merits of providing better distribution (yes, more convenient for cyclists) of a few bike racks on Sutter Street, and like every other thread involving bicycling in town, within a few responses, the topic goes from "why or why not better bicycle parking?", to "bicyclists are scofflaws and don't deserve anything" (and don't pay there own way, etc., etc.).

What I have yet to see addressed is why bicyclists asking for parking appropriate to their preferred form of transportation is considered an entitlement but motorists expecting the same for their mode is not. This, even though the motorists' accommodations cost dramatically more ($8k to $40k per space for surface and structure parking, respectively, versus $100 to $200 per space for bicycle parking) while directly and harmfully impacting the viability of all other modes of transportation. And the motorists insist on this all being provided for free, otherwise they will boycott the whole district, if you believe the merchants. Exactly who has a sense of entitlement?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users