Driving Peeves: SUV's & Turn Signals

[mattmns]

The only way that I can imagine alleviating our traffic woes is this: put the houses within walking or biking range of the businesses. That's what European planners have done for centuries. Our fundamental problem in this country is that we put the most desirable houses five miles from the grocery store, six miles in the other direction from the cinema, eighteen miles from the industrial center, and fourteen miles from the university. No public transportation system is going to be a magic bullet that will make this problem go away. You cannot simply throw more buses at it.

- Warren

Exactly!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I once pointed out to a cop that the sign said, "Speed 55", not "maximum speed". Technically there is a difference but he really wasn't interested.

But it is possible to contest a ticket where it can be argued that the condititions allowed for faster than posted speeds; provided that the speed wasn't indicated as a "speed limit", and provided that the driver didn't exceed the basic maximum speed limit for the state, or the maximum speed for that type of road.

 

[BobG]

The only way that I can imagine alleviating our traffic woes is this: put the houses within walking or biking range of the businesses. That's what European planners have done for centuries. Our fundamental problem in this country is that we put the most desirable houses five miles from the grocery store, six miles in the other direction from the cinema, eighteen miles from the industrial center, and fourteen miles from the university. No public transportation system is going to be a magic bullet that will make this problem go away. You cannot simply throw more buses at it.

- Warren

The fundamental difference is that there is some planning of European cities and none in American cities. A lot of that has to do with necessity. Overall, Europe's a lot more crowded than the United States. Aside from the major metropolises like NYC, Boston, DC, etc, US cities have room for folks to build wherever they please. The two go hand-in-hand. Public transportation doesn't work in most US cities because there is no city planning.

Not that I'd want to live in a city big enough for public transportation to work well. But I would accept the idea of living in a city that was designed for efficiency - I'm not sure expanding randomly across the country side just because you can really yields many benefits.

 

[Evo]

Then you would be guilty of murder. It's against the law to pass when there is not room; you must slow to the speed of the bicyclist and wait until there is a passing opportunity. If there's a double yellow line it's illegal to pass anyway, even if it's a bicycle, although people usually don't complain if you do.

No it wouldn't because I have to make a decision, collide head on with another vehicle (possibly killing them and all passengers) or avoid the collision by returning to my lane. Even on sections without the double line it's a very short space and limited vision of uncoming traffic.

These brain dead morons on bikes are on major roads tooting around for fun when they could be on less traveled roads, they're not going anywhere in particular and are a complete nuisance. Not to mention there are a LOT of bicycle paths for these people to use, but these jerks don't use them. These aren't serious cyclists like you BT. These people care more about how they look than the condition of their bike.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I once pointed out to a cop that the sign said, "Speed 55", not "maximum speed". Technically there is a difference but he really wasn't interested.

But it is possible to contest a ticket where it can be argued that the condititions allowed for faster than posted speeds; provided that the speed wasn't indicated as a "speed limit", and provided that the driver didn't exceed the basic maximum speed limit for the state, or the maximum speed for that type of road.

Laws may be different in different states, I don't know. The cop who told me most of the stuff I'm posting here said that the speed limit is always the maximum allowed under ideal conditions. They can give a ticket to someone going 30 in a 40 zone if the weather and what not make actually going 40 too dangerous at that time. Almost no one realizes this. This is the sort of thing they can pull out of a hat to ticket you with if you tick them off, here.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Aside from the major metropolises like NYC, Boston, DC, etc, US cities have room for folks to build wherever they please.

This isn't the case. There is no place to put anything in most cities. To build, you have to tear something down first. I think in Europe, there are far fewer things they'll let anyone tear down. There's too much historical value.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Laws may be different in different states, I don't know.

I'm pretty sure that this is, or was true for both Ca and Or, but then again I haven't lived down there for a long time now. So I could just be out of date. I know that this was still true here within the last few years.

The cop who told me most of the stuff I'm posting here said that the speed limit is always the maximum allowed under ideal conditions. They can give a ticket to someone going 30 in a 40 zone if the weather and what not make actually going 40 too dangerous at that time. Almost no one realizes this. This is the sort of thing they can pull out of a hat to ticket you with if you tick them off, here.

That is also true - that you can get a ticket going while 30MPH in a 40MPH zone - .but as for the speed, you again cited "speed limit", some signs only say "Speed", and the distinction in the law was very clear.

Also, I wondered a little about the number two item. I am pretty sure that left hand turns across traffic was number two, though this may have been for fatal accidents. "Too fast for conditions" was absolutely number one.

One of the stranger things that I've done was to be trained by an insurance company trainer [a very smart guy btw], and to then give classes for Ca. Class 2 vehicles - full sized busses. It's a long story but in short I had suggested that the CT and MRI bus drivers needed training, so guess who got the job?!? .

 

[Moonbear]

jackasses who don't turn left on red and wait for a green light when it is from a 1 way street onto another 1 way street.

That's not legal everywhere. When I moved to Ann Arbor, I was wondering why all the jackasses kept turning left on red lights, until someone pointed out that in MI, that's legal if it's a one-way street. But, in neither case are you REQUIRED to turn on red, it's just permitted if you feel safe doing so.

Even a right on red isn't legal in some places, like NYC, let alone a left on red!

 

[Moonbear]

Laws may be different in different states, I don't know. The cop who told me most of the stuff I'm posting here said that the speed limit is always the maximum allowed under ideal conditions. They can give a ticket to someone going 30 in a 40 zone if the weather and what not make actually going 40 too dangerous at that time. Almost no one realizes this. This is the sort of thing they can pull out of a hat to ticket you with if you tick them off, here.

Yes, at least in all the states I've lived in, the driving manual explicitly states that the white sign with black numbers that says "speed" or "speed limit" is enforceable as the maximum speed limit. If it's a yellow sign, then it's a suggestion (i.e., you might want to slow down so you don't careen through that guard rail on the sharp curve ahead).

You can get away with speeding when a road is unmarked. That's been challenged many times that you can't always "divine" whether you're in a residential zone when no houses are visible from the road and you're on a double yellow line road that looks like it should allow highway speeds.

I do get a chuckle over the signs you see when you're approaching toll booths that say, "Slow Down Get Ticket." I don't want a ticket, so I better not slow down, right?

 

[matthyaouw]

Young fast drivers are bad, but what makes them worse is when they put big tyres, flashy lights and a loud exhaust pipe on their little Vauxhall nova and race* around town in an evening.

*read: go single file around the same block of buildings 8 times being as loud as possible.

I often wonder if I'm the only cyclist in this city that realizes road laws actually apply to me (i.e. red light = STOP), and that the traffic will not unconditionally part to make way for me if i pull into a lane of oncoming traffic without warning.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, at least in all the states I've lived in, the driving manual explicitly states that the white sign with black numbers that says "speed" or "speed limit" is enforceable as the maximum speed limit.

It was only meant as an aside, but since you mentioned it, that does not mean that it always must be enforced as the maximum speed, as is a speed limit.

 

[BicycleTree]

While I agree that bicycles are better than cars if you both live and work in the city, you seem to be missing the point that many people don't both live and work in the city. Many of the "stupid people" in the single-occupant cars are waiting to get on the freeway and leave the city to go to their houses in other places. They have a reason to be in a car, rather than on a bike. Deal with it.

You're right, they should not be riding bicycles. They should be riding buses. Consider: 10 buses, which will be able to do 60 mph... or 500 cars, carrying the same number of people, which will only be able to do 30 mph because of jamming. Plus, you can do work while riding in a bus, which you cannot do (safely) while riding in a car.

 

[BicycleTree]

When I was talking about single-occupant cars in massive jams I was talking about on a federal highway into Boston. I'm sure similar situations exist for commuters to other cities, and they can all be solved by the use of buses.

 

[zoobyshoe]

but as for the speed, you again cited "speed limit", some signs only say "Speed", and the distinction in the law was very clear.

Why, what could "Speed" be construed to mean if not "Maximum Speed"?

Also, I wondered a little about the number two item. I am pretty sure that left hand turns across traffic was number two, though this may have been for fatal accidents.

He defintely said tailgating was #2: not leaving the proper amount of space between yourself and the car in front of you in proportion to your speed.

 

[Moonbear]

These brain dead morons on bikes are on major roads tooting around for fun when they could be on less traveled roads, they're not going anywhere in particular and are a complete nuisance. Not to mention there are a LOT of bicycle paths for these people to use, but these jerks don't use them. These aren't serious cyclists like you BT. These people care more about how they look than the condition of their bike.

Yep, they aren't people on their way home from work or school, they're out in their fancy shorts to bike nowhere in particular.

I don't mind having to share roads with bicyclists as long as they follow the rules they're supposed to follow too, and have the courtesy to move aside if they can so someone in a car can pass. Of course the folks I know who live close enough to bike to work still appreciate that some of us have cars when the skies open up with a thunderstorm just about the time to head home.

Yeah, buses aren't terribly practical either. By the time they're done making all their stops and zigzagging around town, it takes twice as long to get home. Again, back to when I lived in Ann Arbor, my first half year there, I lived within walking distance of the lab...a long walk...took me about a half hour, but most days it was very pleasant. Parking near campus was impossible to find, so driving wasn't a good option at all if you didn't want to pay through the nose for a parking permit for one of the lots. So, once in a while, if the weather was really bad (freezing or the sidewalks were badly snow-covered or it was raining really hard), I'd take the bus from a stop close to the building I worked in (actually, I'd just start walking along the bus route...if I saw a bus, I took it, and if I missed it, I kept walking). It would take longer to get home by bus than it did to walk. But, when the alternative was freezing halfway home or trudging through snow halfway to my knees (oh did I hate people who didn't shovel their sidewalks), it was worth the extra time. Once I moved out of the city to where I could afford the apartments and have more quiet, buses were no longer an option, nor was walking or biking (30 min drive when there was no traffic...and there usually wasn't because I'd take dirt roads most of the way, at least when it wasn't snowing...no speed limits on dirt roads, or at least nobody enforces them...I had an old enough car I didn't care what I did to the suspension...yee haw!) Then I had to pay for parking, but that plus the additional gas usage still didn't add up to what I was saving by living away from campus.

So, that is really the problem. As soon as you get an area urbanized enough to make it worth having public transportation, the housing costs go up exhorbitantly in the area. I saw that happen in my hometown. As soon as they put in a park & ride with service to NYC, property values soared, because the commuters with city salaries were suddenly moving in. I couldn't afford to move back to my old neighborhood anymore.

Oh, though I'm also thinking now of Davis, CA. Have any of you been there? They say there are more bicycles than people there. People even have bicycle carts and sidecars for their kids and for towing groceries. I've heard they also have bicycle traffic jams. I've never seen a bicycle traffic jam though.

 

[BicycleTree]

Buses in cities are stupid because bicycles are superior to them (and to cars) in cities. It's buses BETWEEN cities that beat cars. Plus, buses are cheaper, and you can get work done on them.

Here are some traffic zones I have noticed, with rankings:
Within city, in general:
1. Bicycle
2. Car
3. Bus

Within city, at peak rush hour:
1. Bicycle
2. Pedestrian
3. Car
4. Bus

Between cities during rush hours:
1. Bus
2. Car
3. Bicycle

Other short-range travel:
1. Car (usually)
2. Bus or bicycle (depending on the situation)

Long-range travel:
1. Airplane
2. Bus
3. Car

 

[Moonbear]

When I was talking about single-occupant cars in massive jams I was talking about on a federal highway into Boston. I'm sure similar situations exist for commuters to other cities, and they can all be solved by the use of buses.

Did you read what Chroot posted? Where will those buses be taking people? I can't even find one other person in my part of town who works similar hours to mine and works on or close to the campus to carpool let alone make it worthwhile having a bus running this direction at those hours.

And, do you know where those people are heading after work? Are they stopping at the grocery store on their way, or picking their kids up from daycare or soccer practice, or dropping off the dry-cleaning, or maybe they have a trunk full of files to take home from the office to work on at night, or maybe they are driving out to the middle of nowhere where they live, maybe meeting friends for dinner or picking up take-out, or heading out of town for the weekend? You're taking an overly simplistic view of the problem.

 

[BicycleTree]

Yes, I read and replied to Chroot's post, and he was confused about where I was talking about the single-occupancy-vehicles causing jamming.

Perhaps for your special situation there would not be an advantage in taking a bus, since so few people have similar commuting plans to yours. Realize, however, that you are an exception.

A bus need only get you within a mile or two of your destination--from there you can bike. If your destination is within the city, at rush hour, then just getting dropped off "inside the city" is sufficient because from then on the bike beats anything else.

The advantages of the bus for commuting between cities at rush hour (distances of 10+ miles) are these: many people can fit into buses, thereby avoiding traffic jams. Buses pollute less than single-occupancy vehicles and are cheaper. And you can do work on buses, which you can't do in cars.


Your arguments about doing laundry and other non-work related activities that demand cars have some merit. However, one could easily take a car to the bus station and then immediately use it again upon one's return; indeed, most bus commuters in my town do this.

 

[brewnog]

Young fast drivers are bad, but what makes them worse is when they put big tyres, flashy lights and a loud exhaust pipe on their little Vauxhall nova and race* around town in an evening.

Now I'm scared that you're going to put me into this category. I've had my car about a year (I'm not going to tell you what sort), and when I picked it up it had this stupid massive (4" diameter?) exhaust pipe on it. It annoys me to hell, I can't go above 60 without deafening myself, although it is pretty nippy and it does sound quite nice... I just feel embarassed every time I drive through a built up area in anything less than 4th. Anyway, it's hanging on by a thread, so I'm kinda waiting for it to drop off, when I can put the OEM exhaust on it again...

 

[mattmns]

A bus need only get you within a mile or two of your destination--from there you can bike. If your destination is within the city, at rush hour, then just getting dropped off "inside the city" is sufficient because from then on the bike beats anything else.

Here the busses carry only 2, maybe 3, bikes, how would this work for more than 2 or 3 people?

 

[BicycleTree]

Matt, I suppose you would add more bike storage to the buses, eh? Remove the front couple seats, for example. Any way you cut it. People could also store their bikes at the bus stop at the other end. And remember, not everyone is going to be dropped off so far from work that they really need a bike.

The bus has several advantages over the single-occupancy car: speed instead of traffic jams, economy, doing work while riding instead of being occupied driving, and environmental friendliness.

 

[Moonbear]

Here the busses carry only 2, maybe 3, bikes, how would this work for more than 2 or 3 people?

On both buses and trains that I've been on, they didn't allow any bikes to be carried on during rush hour. The rest of the day on buses, it was the driver's discretion, so if the bus was particularly crowded, they wouldn't let you take your bike on with you. Recently, I've seen a few buses that have a bike rack on the front, but yeah, it doesn't look like it would carry more than 2 or 3 bikes either. I'm not sure how many of the professionals are going to want to bike though, especially women going to work in suits with skirts and high heels. You'd have to change clothes twice, hope your suit didn't get wrinkled in, what, a backpack?, figure out where to stash the briefcase, get your hair messed up with wind, wind up all sweaty...yeah, I don't think that's going to work for those commuting to work in a city.

 

[Moonbear]

The bus has several advantages over the single-occupancy car: speed instead of traffic jams, economy, doing work while riding instead of being occupied driving, and environmental friendliness.

Until that bus is stuck in the traffic jam with all the other cars and can't stay on schedule.

 

[BicycleTree]

Additionally, a commuter by bus does not need to pay parking fees in a garage or rented lot, or if he would not otherwise put his car in one of those places, he does not need to waste time finding a parking space. Some people may have free parking spaces provided by their places of employment, making this less of a concern, but these people compose quite a small minority. (And even for these people, the other advantages of the bus apply to an equally great degree)

 

[BicycleTree]

The point of buses is that the more people take buses, the fewer traffic jams you have. There aren't "all the other cars" if most commuters take the bus. 1 bus takes 50 single-occupancy cars off the road at a stroke.

 

[chroot]

A bus need only get you within a mile or two of your destination--from there you can bike. If your destination is within the city, at rush hour, then just getting dropped off "inside the city" is sufficient because from then on the bike beats anything else.

You don't get it.

As Moonbear said, hardly anyone lives in the same area she lives, and also works in the same area she works. If you were to introduce a direct bus route from Moonbear's work to Moonbear's home, perhaps three or four people would ride it, in total. The number of different combinations of home bus stops and work bus stops is staggering. The number of such direct bus routes you'd have to provide to put everyone on a direct bus with suitably-close endpoints would therefore also be staggering. As I said, I believe you'd have almost as many buses as cars.

The only other option to direct buses are switched buses. You can introduce hubs on the bus lines, and make people transfer a dozen times. You've now made better use of the buses' capacity, but you've killed the speed. The buses would take 2, 3, or 4 times as long as the equivalent car ride, and no one would use the service due to the inconvenience.

Either way, your "carpet the land with buses" idea will fail. If you provide too many direct bus routes, the buses will be underutilized, and will fail economically. If you provide too few direct bus routes, the bus rides will be too lengthy, and no one will use them.

Again, as I and others have explained, the problem cannot be solved simply by throwing more buses at it. It is a very complex problem, and thousands of people have spent a lot more time than you considering solutions. The bottom line, as I've said, is that the only real solution to the transportation problem is to eliminate the need for transportation altogether. This can only be accomplished by inventing teleportation, or better city planning.

- Warren

 

[BicycleTree]

And might I add that a great many people already do enjoy the practical advantages of bike and bus. There simply aren't enough of us.

Yes, you change your clothes when you ride a bike, and get 5 or 10 minutes of good exercise. For a woman wearing a skirt, there are these silly "women's bikes" with low top bars which weigh more and are weaker, but enable one to ride a bike with a skirt on, although the better option may be to change.

 

[BicycleTree]

As Moonbear said, hardly anyone lives in the same area she lives, and also works in the same area she works. If you were to introduce a direct bus route from Moonbear's work to Moonbear's home, perhaps three or four people would ride it, in total. The number of different combinations of home bus stops and work bus stops is staggering. The number of such direct bus routes you'd have to provide to put everyone on a direct bus with suitably-close endpoints would therefore also be staggering. As I said, I believe you'd have almost as many buses as cars.

Perhaps for your special situation there would not be an advantage in taking a bus, since so few people have similar commuting plans to yours. Realize, however, that you are an exception.

Those people who are isolated will go by car. However, there aren't so many of these.

Rather than switching bus onto bus, probably the best way is to unite an area or two into a bus stop just before the highway, so that you jump in your car, go to the bus stop, and take the bus from there. The bus doesn't take you from home to work; it takes you from start of highway to city.

Basically, you ask, where are the traffic jams? And for the most part there are two answers for commuters: in main arteries, and in cities. The main artery jam is solved through buses, and the city jam is solved through bikes.

 

[Evo]

Perhaps for your special situation there would not be an advantage in taking a bus, since so few people have similar commuting plans to yours. Realize, however, that you are an exception.

I don't think it's an exception, that's how it is here also. Which is probably why there is no mass transportation. They're trying buses in some of the popular parts of the county, but whenever I see one, it's empty.

A bus need only get you within a mile or two of your destination--from there you can bike.

Are you saying people should take their bikes on the bus?

If your destination is within the city, at rush hour, then just getting dropped off "inside the city" is sufficient because from then on the bike beats anything else.

Where are these inner city bikes coming from?

The advantages of the bus for commuting between cities at rush hour (distances of 10+ miles) are these: many people can fit into buses, thereby avoiding traffic jams. Buses pollute less than single-occupancy vehicles and are cheaper. And you can do work on buses, which you can't do in cars.

Not too many people aren't going to need a car when they get to the distant city.

Taking the bus has never been practical where ever I lived, if they had buses at all. When I lived in Houston, the traffic was terrible and I would car pool, but even that meant driving 35 minutes to a location to meet the person I carpooled with for the remaining 1-2 hour drive.

In Chicago, you have trains from the suburbs into the city, those I used because you could then take the subway once you got downtown.

 

[chroot]

Additionally, a commuter by bus does not need to pay parking fees in a garage or rented lot, or if he would not otherwise put his car in one of those places, he does not need to waste time finding a parking space. Some people may have free parking spaces provided by their places of employment, making this less of a concern, but these people compose quite a small minority. (And even for these people, the other advantages of the bus apply to an equally great degree)

You know, BicycleTree, this discussion is getting on my nerves -- you keep changing the subject. You started by harping about how great bikes are in cities. I agree, they are. Public transportation makes good sense in urban environments, also. Then you started talking about turning the freeways into bus-only conduits, and continue to ignore the glaring problems with that approach.

Now you're trying to argue your point by saying that bus riders won't have to pay for personal vehicle parking -- but the only places where you have to pay to park in America are the cities, and we all already agree that cars are not best option in cities.

The problem is that most Americans don't work in major cities, and city-style public transportation is not a viable option for their locales.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Those people who are isolated will go by car. However, there aren't so many of these.

This is the situation for the vast majority of people. I don't know anyone who works in my area who also lives in my area.

Rather than switching bus onto bus, probably the best way is to unite an area or two into a bus stop just before the highway, so that you jump in your car, go to the bus stop, and take the bus from there. The bus doesn't take you from home to work; it takes you from start of highway to city.

But I don't work in a city; I work in another suburban-sprawl area.

The main artery jam is solved through buses

You can keep saying it all you like; the simple fact is that buses (even lots of them) won't solve it. People live and work in too many different combinations of places for buses to be effective.

- Warren

 

[BicycleTree]

Chroot, I'm not sure you understand what I am talking about. I am talking about commuters who live in the suburbs and commute into a city. I am not talking about other categories of workers.

The bus is better on the highway because it eliminates congestion; the bike is better in the city. Taking a car on the highway to commute with is inferior because once you get to the city, you must park it; the in-city considerations are closely tied to the to-city considerations.

 

[chroot]

Chroot, I'm not sure you understand what I am talking about. I am talking about commuters who live in the suburbs and commute into a city. I am not talking about other categories of workers.

This is a relatively small percentage of the population, BicycleTree. It's already mostly solved in most metropolitan areas, anyway -- DC has the metro, NYC has the subway, SF has BART, and so on. If everyone were going to the same destination, the problem would be quite simple. In real life, however, there are a thousand different destinations.

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

In many respects, the XBL is a victim of its own success.
Commuting by bus via the XBL has become so popular
that the lane is nearly full. With the XBL at or near capac-
ity, the operation has been subject to periodic travel
delays, affecting the reliability of commuting by bus
through the Lincoln Tunnel. To further compound con-
gestion, if a bus breaks down in the XBL there is no alter-
native but for buses to use the eastbound roadway of
Route 495. These situations completely erode the travel
advantages of the XBL for bus riders and create an acute
congestion condition for the entire corridor.

www.panynj.gov/tbt/pdf/XBL-II_nwslttr_285fri.pdf[/URL]
(hopefully the link works)

 

[BicycleTree]

I read an idea by someone, Richard, of Richard's Bicycle Book, wherein each city produces its own bicycles which are available for free public use. The city takes responsibility for fixing the bicycles in the form of repair stations, and each city has its own distinctive bicycle frame so that if anyone is seen riding that type of frame outside the city, they can be identified as thieves. The bikes are just left wherever someone finishes with them, and anyone who sees a city bike anywhere is free to use it within the city. This eliminates all trouble of ensuring your bike is in the right place at the right time. I think it's a pretty good idea.

 

[BicycleTree]

This is a relatively small percentage of the population, BicycleTree. It's already mostly solved in most metropolitan areas, anyway -- DC has the metro, NYC has the subway, SF has BART, and so on. If everyone were going to the same destination, the problem would be quite simple. In real life, however, there are a thousand different destinations.

I think it's more than you think. I have recently started going into and out of Boston via a 3-lane highway, which even has the breakdown lane designated as available for use during rush hours, effectively making it a 4-lane highway. Thousands of single-occupancy vehicles reduce the speed on the highway to 5, 10, 15 mph for long stretches, so that it takes an hour to travel thirty miles. This is the situation I refer to, and the problem has not been solved.

 

[chroot]

Bicycle (and car) sharing programs are already in place in many major metropolitan cities.

- Warren

 

[zoobyshoe]

In China just about everyone rides bicycles. Speak any Chinese BicycleTree? You'd feel at home there.

 

[chroot]

I think it's more than you think.

Provide evidence to support your assertion.

- Warren

 

[BicycleTree]

zooby, many people ride bicycles in the USA as well. I know of two other people on this site who ride street bikes recreationally.

 

[BicycleTree]

Chroot, isn't the 4-lane single-occupancy-vehicle massive traffic jam going into Boston evidence enough?

 

[Evo]

I read an idea by someone, Richard, of Richard's Bicycle Book, wherein each city produces its own bicycles which are available for free public use. The city takes responsibility for fixing the bicycles in the form of repair stations, and each city has its own distinctive bicycle frame so that if anyone is seen riding that type of frame outside the city, they can be identified as thieves. The bikes are just left wherever someone finishes with them, and anyone who sees a city bike anywhere is free to use it within the city. This eliminates all trouble of ensuring your bike is in the right place at the right time. I think it's a pretty good idea.

The problem in a city is that most people are professionals and need to carry their laptop and files, presentations, samples, among other things, and can't be showing up for a meeting disheveled and sweaty.

I would never be able to use a bike because I have to visit clients and there is usually at least 26 miles between clients and very little time between appointments.

 

[Evo]

Chroot, isn't the 4-lane single-occupancy-vehicle massive traffic jam going into Boston evidence enough?

A bus in this case wouldn't work, people will still need a car to get around the Boston area, which is why so many people drive there and don't take the bus.

 

[chroot]

Chroot, isn't the 4-lane single-occupancy-vehicle massive traffic jam going into Boston evidence enough?

No. You've made the assertion -- several times, in fact -- that the majority of Americans live in the suburbs, but work inside city limits. I am challenging you to provide evidence of this assertion, because I do not believe it at all.

- Warren

 

[LeBrad]

Chroot, isn't the 4-lane single-occupancy-vehicle massive traffic jam going into Boston evidence enough?

You know Boston has a commuter rail and a subway system that many many people already use. Perhaps you should move to a smaller city if you don't like the idea of a large influx of people in the morning.

 

[Knavish]

Chroot, I wouldn't say that the majority of Americans live in the suburbs, but it is the growing trend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburbanization

 

[chroot]

The problem in a city is that most people are professionals and need to carry their laptop and files, presentations, samples, among other things, and can't be showing up for a meeting disheveled and sweaty.

This is certainly a problem.

I'd also like to discuss the myth of BicycleTree's work-on-the-bus proposal. My professional work involves hundreds of thousands of dollars of test and measurement equipment sprawled over several benches -- obviously I cannot do any real work on the bus. Many other people have the same problem: buses don't provide enough room per passenger to actually do any serious work. Some professionals could bring a laptop and work on a presentation, perhaps, but many people find the fifty sweating bodies crammed into your personal space to be a bit of a distraction. Needless to say, unless your "work" involves reading novels, most people aren't going to get a whole lot done on a bus.

- Warren

 

[BicycleTree]

No. You've made the assertion -- several times, in fact -- that the majority of Americans live in the suburbs, but work inside city limits. I am challenging you to provide evidence of this assertion, because I do not believe it at all.

I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant that the majority of commuters to the city live in areas where there are other commuters.

 

[Huckleberry]

Rush hour traffic jams are a pain. I don't see bicycles replacing cars any time soon. Maybe if gas prices go over 5 dollars a gallon people will start taking bicycles seriously.

I think a large part of the problem is that some people take a car to go 1 block to the corner store and back. Last semester I walked to school about a mile away. Almost nobody there walked. They drove the same mile and parked in a 5 story parking garage and drove the one or two miles back to their houses. It took me about the same time to walk as it did for them to drive. If I were riding a bicycle I would have been home long before them.

Banning cars from the highway so only buses can use them is pretty ridiculous. Some people need their cars. Their may be no bus route. People often do chores on their way home from work, or have to pick up their children from day care somewhere. Some people are not able to ride a bicycle or walk very far to a bus stop. I think that if people would use public transportation and walk or bike when it was convenient then there would be much less traffic.

I once bicycled 50 miles in about 2.5 hours. I hope to bicycle across Australia someday.

 

[chroot]

Chroot, I wouldn't say that the majority of Americans live in the subarbs, but it is the growing trend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburbanization

I didn't ask this; the number of people living in the suburbs is not directly related to the number who actually commute to the central city each day. I am one such person -- I live in the suburbs of San Francisco, but I do not work there; I only go there for nightlife and culture. Almost everyone I know is in the same situation.

- Warren