Roseville Plans Community Meetings
Summary
- There are 19 posts — by 8 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by David Moufang at 2009 Jul 22 19:51 UTC
Roseville residents take pride in their city and want to invest in its future. Those thoughts were woven throughout the Imagine Roseville 2025 report developed by residents. Residents asked the Council to âreach out to include everyone in community decision making.â Roseville is calling for your input on budgeting and spending priorities. Even though Roseville is an efficiently run city (our property tax level is one of the lowest among cities of comparable population in the metro area), the city faces some difficult budget questions. Roseville invites you to any of the community meetings we have planned. Weâll give you an overview of city governance and explain the budgeting process and the budget challenges we are facing. ⢠Tuesday, July 21 at 1:00 p.m. at Fairview Community Center, 1910 West County Road B ⢠Thursday, July 23 at 9:30 a.m. at Centennial United Methodist Church, 1524 West County Road C2 ⢠Wednesday, July 29 at 6:30 p.m. at Central Park School Gym, 535 West County Road B2 ⢠Thursday, July 30 at 6:30 p.m. at North Heights School, 2651 Rice St. North If you are unable to attend a meeting and have comments, contact City Manager Bill Malinen at 651-792-7021 or <email obscured>.
This would be a great place to bring up the idea of having a pathway budget for creating new paths and sidewalks particularly along the major roads that are missing them and desperately need them. Currently, there is no city money allocated towards this and it happens once in a blue moon when someone decides to give us random grant money or every 60 years when a road gets reconstructed.
Whenever individuals come up with their pet suggestion and the thing that affects them most, they always think that their priority is the one that should be funded first and not someone elses. In case it is not widely known or understood to those, there is a major downturn in the economy that is affecting many if not all individuals, companies, and all forms of government entities as well. Private citizens have accomodated this downturn with cut-backs in their personal spending. Companies have responded by cutting spending and massive layoffs. It is up to government entities to do the same where spending is not mandated or necessary. Unfortunately, the government is responsible for many things that can't or shouldn't be cut - police, fire, utilities and infrastructure maintenance and repair. These are mandated expenditures for the protection of our citizens but pathways, parks, public art, and the like are not, and should be put on hold until the economy returns and there is money available for such projects. If that works a hardship on certain individuals or inconveniences them, so be it. They just have to suffer through it like the rest and wait for better times. I am tired of hearing of pet projects that every individual thinks should be funded when there isn't enough money for the essentials. Let's get some priority to our thinking instead of just thinking of what "I" need. Dick Houck
----- Original Message ----- From: <email obscured>> To: <email obscured>> Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 5:57 PM Subject: [Roseville] Roseville Plans Community Meetings > This would be a great place to bring up the idea of having a pathway > budget for creating new paths and sidewalks particularly along the major > roads that are missing them and desperately need them. Currently, there > is no city money allocated towards this and it happens once in a blue moon > when someone decides to give us random grant money or every 60 years when > a road gets reconstructed. > Steve Gjerdingen > Central Park, Roseville > Info about Steve Gjerdingen: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/5Uy9oI5GzPsBw9V1V3y9XK > > View all messages on this topic at: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1rtVWaLprA89h6vtBKCCa2 > ----------------------------------------- > To post, e-mail: <email obscured> > Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" > in subject, then send to: <email obscured> > > More information about Roseville Issues Forum: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues > > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules > ----------------------------------------- > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net > > Roseville Issues Forum > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html >
Since when is being able to walk safely down the street not a necessity?
Since when is being able to walk safely down the street not a necessity?
If walking safely down the street is a necessity, then isn't driving safely down the street a necessity too? So when the city spends $100 million on pathways, then they should pony up for all of us with old cars to get a free new car with all of those new air bag gizmos in it. PS. I do find it interesting that we need to pave pathways wide enough to drive cars on them in order to have people walk safely. Have all of us grown so fat that we cannot pass each other on those regular sized sidewalks they installed in Saint Paul over the past hundred years? John M. Kysylyczyn K Solutions LLC, owner K Care LLC, owner 3083 Victoria Street Roseville, MN 55113 email: <email obscured> home office: (651) 484-1384 www.ksolutionsllc.com Mayor of Roseville, MN 2000-2004
-----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2009 10:39 PM To: <email obscured> Subject: [Roseville] Roseville Plans Community Meetings Since when is being able to walk safely down the street not a necessity? Steve Gjerdingen Central Park, Roseville Info about Steve Gjerdingen: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/5Uy9oI5GzPsBw9V1V3y9XK View all messages on this topic at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3r1dm7rNPXNjGyXerHH5Gc ----------------------------------------- To post, e-mail: <email obscured> Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" in subject, then send to: <email obscured> More information about Roseville Issues Forum: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules ----------------------------------------- Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net Roseville Issues Forum http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html
John, Both are important. The county and state spends a lot of money maintaining and improving our main arteries. Unfortunately, the city is stuck paying the all the costs for pathways even along county roads, unless there is a major reconstruction project where the county is already involved. Every year traffic levels increase and roads become less safe for pedestrians, and of course less safe for cars as well. I think there needs to be a balance and the needs of both users need to be met for each and every road. No one is asking the city to spend $100 million on pathways. To put pathways along our main arteries would make our city a lot safer though. Honestly, I don't think sidewalks need to be wide enough to drive a car on them. St Paul's sidewalks work great, and it's wonderful that they just have them there on all their major streets. However, St. Paul has sidewalks on both sides of the street usually, and Roseville typically does not. When there is only one sidewalk along the busy 4-lane road, and 2 bikers are coming at each other on it, then the extra width comes in handy. Having sidewalks on both sides of the street would help along major arteries by dispersing bike/pedestrian traffic on both of the sides and then the sidewalks wouldn't need to be as wide. I'd prefer having 2 narrow sidewalks on both sides rather than a large sidewalk on one side actually, as it also helps reduce the number of dangerous crossings in the middle of a busy road. On minor streets (like Western Ave) having a small sidewalk on only one side of the road makes sense. On a major road, one sidewalk is better than none, even if it is narrow. Some of our major roads even lack this.
Bicyclists should not be on the sidewalks anyway...here is a chart from the website detailing the actual Minnesota Rules of the Road for bicyclists - it has the full statutes, as well as highlights on the first page, of which this is one. The link to the site is here: _http://www.sharetheroadmn.org/rules.html_ (http://www.sharetheroadmn.org/rules.html) I strongly encourage all to visit the site and read the actual laws for a few minutes -- it might not push the discussion necessarily one way or the other, but at least then we can all make informed decisions. The way I read this is, there is no justification for additional sidewalk or pathway spending due to bicycle riding -- if bicyclists don't know how to safely drive in the streets they shouldn't be cycling. That may seem cold and callous, but the numbers don't lie - we are actually protecting more people by forcing cyclists off the sidewalks. Anecdotes are nice, but the actual statistics prove this. Thanks all. A 1996 study determined the likelihood of a bicycle accident by facility type. (This is the only major study that adjusts crash data for the number of miles bicyclists actually travel on these facilities.) The study found that riding on the road is not only safer—but much safer—than riding on these other types of facilities. Bicycle Crashes per Million Kilometers Traveled Street with bike lanes Street with signed bike route (but no marked lanes) Major street with no bike facilities Minor street with no bike facilities Multi-use trail Off road/unpaved trail Sidewalk 26 32 41 59 88 282 1026 Source: William E. Moritz, “Adult Bicyclists in the United States,” in Transportation Research Record 1636 Mike Boguszewski Roseville, MN 55113 In a message dated 7/20/2009 8:12:07 P.M. Central Daylight Time, <email obscured> writes: John, Both are important. The county and state spends a lot of money maintaining and improving our main arteries. Unfortunately, the city is stuck paying the all the costs for pathways even along county roads, unless there is a major reconstruction project where the county is already involved. Every year traffic levels increase and roads become less safe for pedestrians, and of course less safe for cars as well. I think there needs to be a balance and the needs of both users need to be met for each and every road. No one is asking the city to spend $100 million on pathways. To put pathways along our main arteries would make our city a lot safer though. Honestly, I don't think sidewalks need to be wide enough to drive a car on them. St Paul's sidewalks work great, and it's wonderful that they just have them there on all their major streets. However, St. Paul has sidewalks on both sides of the street usually, and Roseville typically does not. When there is only one sidewalk along the busy 4-lane road, and 2 bikers are coming at each other on it, then the extra width comes in handy. Having sidewalks on both sides of the street would help along major arteries by dispersing bike/pedestrian traffic on both of the sides and then the sidewalks wouldn't need to be as wide. I'd prefer having 2 narrow sidewalks on both sides rather than a large sidewalk on one side actually, as it also helps reduce the number of dangerous crossings in the middle of a busy road. On minor streets (like Western Ave) having a small sidewalk on only one side of the road makes sense. On a major road, one sidewalk is better than none, even if it is nar row. Some of our major roads even lack this. Steve Gjerdingen Central Park, Roseville Info about Steve Gjerdingen: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/5Uy9oI5GzPsBw9V1V3y9XK View all messages on this topic at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2iuVjJ6HunVzlTaJR5aY9w
----------------------------------------- To post, e-mail: <email obscured> Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" in subject, then send to: <email obscured> More information about Roseville Issues Forum: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules ----------------------------------------- Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net Roseville Issues Forum http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html **************What's for dinner tonight? Find quick and easy dinner ideas for any occasion. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?ncid=emlcntusfood00000008)
I'm pretty sure that bikes can operate on sidewalks _except_ in business districts or if the municipality has an ordinance prohibiting riding on sidewalks. The full statute (169.222) includes this provision: Subd. 4.Riding on roadway or shoulder. (d) A person operating a bicycle upon a sidewalk, or across a roadway or shoulder on a crosswalk, shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give an audible signal when necessary before overtaking and passing any pedestrian. No person shall ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk within a business district unless permitted by local authorities. Local authorities may prohibit the operation of bicycles on any sidewalk or crosswalk under their jurisdiction. > Bicyclists should not be on the sidewalks anyway...here is a chart > from the > website detailing the actual Minnesota Rules of the Road for > bicyclists - > it has the full statutes, as well as highlights on the first page, of
> which > this is one. The link to the site is here:
In Roseville, they call them "pathways" so that is how they get around the issue of bicycles riding on them. If it was a "sidewalk" then I believe it is considered pedestrian only. So just change the name of it and bicycles are allowed on it. The bigger question is who in their right mind would ride a bicycle on a sidewalk. Members of I believe the Twin Cities Bicycle Club, testified at a council meeting around 2000 or 2001 that 80% of bicycle/motor vehicle accidents occur on pathways. That is common sense. What motor vehicle driver is looking for moving objects at greater than walking speeds that are 5, 10, or 15 feet away from the street when they are making turns. Then add in that the bicycles don't necessarily travel with traffic on pathways. You can't see them plain and simple. It is much safer on the street traveling with traffic. Personally I have almost hit and killed several bicycle riders. Some of them riding the wrong direction on the road. Others riding against traffic on pathways. Last time was on Lexington just north of D, driving south. Come to the crest of the hill and wham! Two bicycle riders come from out of nowhere coming right at me. Maybe at this community meeting we should ask for a full time police position of bicycle enforcement. Ask for this to make the community safer. Then maybe that cyclist who blew the stop sign at Victoria and B-2 two weeks ago might get a ticket the next time he does that. John M. Kysylyczyn K Solutions LLC, owner K Care LLC, owner 3083 Victoria Street Roseville, MN 55113 email: <email obscured> home office: (651) 484-1384 www.ksolutionsllc.com Mayor of Roseville, MN 2000-2004
-----Original Message----- From: Rick Mons <email obscured>] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:54 PM To: <email obscured> Subject: Re: [Roseville] Roseville Plans Community Meetings I'm pretty sure that bikes can operate on sidewalks _except_ in business districts or if the municipality has an ordinance prohibiting riding on sidewalks. The full statute (169.222) includes this provision: Subd. 4.Riding on roadway or shoulder. (d) A person operating a bicycle upon a sidewalk, or across a roadway or shoulder on a crosswalk, shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give an audible signal when necessary before overtaking and passing any pedestrian. No person shall ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk within a business district unless permitted by local authorities. Local authorities may prohibit the operation of bicycles on any sidewalk or crosswalk under their jurisdiction. > Bicyclists should not be on the sidewalks anyway...here is a chart > from the > website detailing the actual Minnesota Rules of the Road for > bicyclists - > it has the full statutes, as well as highlights on the first page, of > which > this is one. The link to the site is here: Rick Mons Tanglewood n'hood, Shoreview, Minnesota Info about Rick Mons: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/rickmons View all messages on this topic at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2MLl1oQHmTA4KluH8iPGbY ----------------------------------------- To post, e-mail: <email obscured> Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" in subject, then send to: <email obscured> More information about Roseville Issues Forum: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules ----------------------------------------- Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net Roseville Issues Forum http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html
Mike, If Roseville had more shoulders, bike lanes, and side streets, more bikers would feel comfortable taking to the road instead of the sidewalk. However, it still makes sense I think for little kids and people who are less confident about biking in traffic to have the ability to use a sidewalk or path. John, Technically a pathway can be a shoulder as well according to Rosevilleâs definition on their maps. However, almost everyone is referring to a sidepath in this city when they say âpathwayâ, because thatâs all we really know, and the term itself is a not a good term to describe anything more than that. With all of our major arterial roads being the only links to get places, all we can really do is pave the sidewalk because there is so much opposition to having a shoulder on a 3 lane road that could be 4 lanes instead. Thatâs all that the less confident cyclists will get for now. I agree that cycling on the road is safer and better overall and that roads in our city should be built to support this my having a shoulder or bike lane. That being said, this weekend while riding eastbound on County Road C at Lexington and taking the lane (note that the eastbound path ends in this spot as well) I had a couple young men (late teens) in a car making a right turn behind me cuss at me and tell me to âGet on the F***ing sidewalk!â. Also, on Rice Street while heading northbound at the Minnesota intersection, I had a couple more young men scream at me to âGet off the F***ing road!â Hopefully, these kids arenât from Roseville. Again, consider my recent two experiences and read my response to Mike and you will know why people in their âright mindâ would ride on the sidewalk.
Mike, If Roseville had more shoulders, bike lanes, and side streets, more bikers would feel comfortable taking to the road instead of the sidewalk. However, it still makes sense I think for little kids and people who are less confident about biking in traffic to have the ability to use a sidewalk or path. John, Technically a pathway can be a shoulder as well according to Rosevilleâs definition on their maps. However, almost everyone is referring to a sidepath in this city when they say âpathwayâ, because thatâs all we really know, and the term itself is a not a good term to describe anything more than that. With all of our major arterial roads being the only links to get places, all we can really do is pave the sidewalk because there is so much opposition to having a shoulder on a 3 lane road that could be 4 lanes instead. Thatâs all that the less confident cyclists will get for now. I agree that cycling on the road is safer and better overall and that roads in our city should be built to support this my having a shoulder or bike lane. That being said, this weekend while riding eastbound on County Road C at Lexington and taking the lane (note that the eastbound path ends in this spot as well) I had a couple young men (late teens) in a car making a right turn behind me cuss at me and tell me to âGet on the F***ing sidewalk!â. Also, on Rice Street while heading northbound at the Minnesota intersection, I had a couple more young men scream at me to âGet off the F***ing road!â Hopefully, these kids arenât from Roseville. Again, consider my recent two experiences and read my response to Mike and you will know why people in their âright mindâ would ride on the sidewalk.
Maybe the fact that it mostly IS "little kids and people who are less confident about biking" who are biking on the sidewalks that makes the bike-sidewalk accident statistics so high. If we are going to talk about infrastructure tied inextricably to social engineering (make us walk to lose weight?), why not have a real licensing and tagging process for bikes as well, required bike competence and safety courses, actually teaching little kids how to properly understand and follow traffic signs and signals from a young age. We started down this path decades ago with bike helmet laws, why not just take it further along that trajectory? I would rather see money spent on such programs that can teach us all something we then can use to improve our personal safety and confidence for a lifetime, than spend money on infrastructure that -- essentially -- is put into place to support a situation which is somewhat dysfunctional and second-best. Now, that obviously is the secondary issue here, because the only reason I went and checked on the bicycle accident statistics initially was because some folks wanted to add biking as part of the reason for more sidewalks in Roseville. For me, anyway, seeing those staggering numbers clearly takes "biking" off the table as a justification for sidewalks. So the real issue is more basic: do we as citizens want our money spent for sidewalks, for legitimate reasons. What's a legitimate reason? To me the most obvious is that we have people walking from one point to another anyway -- or who expressly would like to but don't feel safe doing so without the sidewalk. And that is a very, very, very neighborhood and block-specific concept. So, frankly, I agree with John K. that it would be good to have some sort of statistical observations/counts, or AT LEAST some kind of voter referendum, which could certainly be organized along a precinct by precinct level, to find out for sure what neighborhoods actually would support their money being spent for such projects. The city could then at least weigh the demand against the overall cost to bring un-sidewalked neighborhoods up to speed with sidewalked neighborhoods, and then put that cost to a city-wide vote test. (Because I don't believe you could reasonably ask for each neighborhood to pay for its own sidewalk construction and maintenance, that would come from the joint city coffers.) I, for one, right now live on a residential street with no sidewalks on either side, but guess what: there weren't any sidewalks when we moved here, and we chose our house and street knowing that we would be driving almost anywhere we wanted to go! So it's not like we had them and then someone came in the night and took them away. So, if someone were to come and say, "Hey, guess what - we're going to build you sidewalks", I'd say, "okay", but then if they said, "oh, and by the way, it's going to cost $x million to build them and then $Y,000 each year to maintain them,", I would certainly say, "hey, hold on! We didn't ASK for these -- why not spend the money on something we really might want in Roseville?" It's as simple as that, isn't it? Mike Boguszewski, Chair Republican HD 54A 1840 Merrill Street Roseville, MN 55113 612/963-2431 <email obscured> In a message dated 7/22/2009 8:30:24 A.M. Central Daylight Time, <email obscured> writes: Mike, If Roseville had more shoulders, bike lanes, and side streets, more bikers would feel comfortable taking to the road instead of the sidewalk. However, it still makes sense I think for little kids and people who are less confident about biking in traffic to have the ability to use a sidewalk or path. John, Technically a pathway can be a shoulder as well according to Roseville’s definition on their maps. However, almost everyone is referring to a sidepath in this city when they say “pathway”, because that’s all we really know, and the term itself is a not a good term to describe anything more than that. With all of our major arterial roads being the only links to get places, all we can really do is pave the sidewalk because there is so much opposition to having a shoulder on a 3 lane road that could be 4 lanes instead. That’s all that the less confident cyclists will get for now. I agree that cycling on the road is safer and better overall and that roads in our city should be built to support this my having a shoulder or bike lane. That being said, this weekend while riding eastbound on County Road C at Lexington and taking the lane (note that the eastbound path ends in this spot as well) I had a couple young men (late teens) in a car making a right turn behind me cuss at me and tell me to “Get on the F***ing sidewalk!”. Also, on Rice Street while heading northbound at the Minnesota intersection, I had a couple more young men scream at me to “Get off the F***ing road!” Hopefully, these kids aren’t from Roseville. Again, consider my recent two experiences and read my response to Mike and you will know why people in their “right mind” would ride on the sidewalk. Steve Gjerdingen Central Park, Roseville Info about Steve Gjerdingen: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/5Uy9oI5GzPsBw9V1V3y9XK View all messages on this topic at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1VcLFGtS3REOtYatmEdydW
----------------------------------------- To post, e-mail: <email obscured> Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" in subject, then send to: <email obscured> More information about Roseville Issues Forum: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules ----------------------------------------- Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net Roseville Issues Forum http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html **************What's for dinner tonight? Find quick and easy dinner ideas for any occasion. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?ncid=emlcntusfood00000008)
Just my two cents, but I bike on sidewalks all the time (when available -- Roseville doesn't have many). I think it's way safer than biking in the street. Bike lanes don't do ANYTHING for safety. That white line does not prevent an idiot driver from veering and colliding with a cyclist. To the contrary, I've never seen anyone driving a car on the sidewalk. To me, it is 100% the cyclist's responsibility to maintain his/her safety. When I'm biking to/from work, I basically assume that every car is TRYING to hit me. That kind of defensive mentality goes a long way. Bike lanes are nice, and I use them when they're available, but they guarantee nothing. You still have to look over your shoulder. As far as ticketing cyclists, that's an attitude I've found to come from motorists who are simply annoyed with people on bikes and don't want them on the roads at all.
David "As far as ticketing cyclists, that's an attitude I've found to come from motorists who are simply annoyed with people on bikes and don't want them on the roads at all." So, you're assuming that's what I am? I ride a bike, not avidly, but for recreation and pleasure. Sometimes, yes, even to the store to pick up small items. My kids ride their bikes. The "attitude" is honestly one where I simply wish more cyclists had the opportunity, mandated if need be just like for car drivers, about the traffic regulations that they are supposed to follow. You say when you cycle, you assume every car is trying to hit you? Well, what are the percentages in terms of miles driven of cars that actually do swerve up onto sidewalks and lanes vs. the incidents of bikes running straight through red lights and stop signs, swerving suddenly to cross the road, coming very fast at a pedestrian walking on the sidewalk who doesn't know if the cyclist sees him or not, bikers passing up between lanes of cars stopped at a red light -- I assume every cyclist is actually TRYING to do something stupid, and I guess I find it particularly stupid because in the brain of a cyclist, there seems to be no recognition of the laws of physics between handling and stopping a 2,000-lb car vs. a 20-lb bike. As for your comment that you bike on sidewalks all the time because you think its safer -- you've been lucky; if you check the stats, you will find that you are simply dead wrong -- I only hope I'm not around to see it when the statistics catch up with you. The sad part is, it probably won't be your fault, because obviously you do cycle in an aware state of mind, I'm sure you don't jolt out across lanes, and statistically you'll probably get clocked by some other cyclist who just isn't paying very much attention. I should think that SERIOUS cyclists would INSIST on proper awareness of laws, good bike safety training, etc. Do you think race car drivers enjoy driving the streets with morons who don't know how to handle their cars? You should lament the "amateur" nature of most people on bikes out there on the roads, not defend it. Or, you do ride on sidewalks simply because you know it's been safer for YOU and to heck with how it affects the other people -- walking, biking or driving -- that are on the streets. To paraphrase, that's an attitude I've found to come from cyclists who are simply annoyed with people in cars and don't want them on the roads at all. Mike Boguszewski In a message dated 7/22/2009 10:45:13 A.M. Central Daylight Time, <email obscured> writes: Just my two cents, but I bike on sidewalks all the time (when available -- Roseville doesn't have many). I think it's way safer than biking in the street. Bike lanes don't do ANYTHING for safety. That white line does not prevent an idiot driver from veering and colliding with a cyclist. To the contrary, I've never seen anyone driving a car on the sidewalk. To me, it is 100% the cyclist's responsibility to maintain his/her safety. When I'm biking to/from work, I basically assume that every car is TRYING to hit me. That kind of defensive mentality goes a long way. Bike lanes are nice, and I use them when they're available, but they guarantee nothing. You still have to look over your shoulder. As far as ticketing cyclists, that's an attitude I've found to come from motorists who are simply annoyed with people on bikes and don't want them on the roads at all. David Moufang Roseville Info about David Moufang: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/davidmoufang View all messages on this topic at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3XgzGs4VYWFc7TuMEGpQE8
----------------------------------------- To post, e-mail: <email obscured> Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" in subject, then send to: <email obscured> More information about Roseville Issues Forum: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules ----------------------------------------- Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net Roseville Issues Forum http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html **************What's for dinner tonight? Find quick and easy dinner ideas for any occasion. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?ncid=emlcntusfood00000008)
Note that I did preface my comments with "my two cents." I'm not that concerned with statistics. I've been riding to work for about six years, so I have a fair amount of experience. In my opinion, a bicycle is much closer to a pedestrian on foot than an automobile. Cyclists and pedestrians have roughly the same mass and visibility. I often tell my wife that my bike is better than the ring in Lord of the Rings because my bike actually exists. It makes me totally invisible to anyone driving a car. People in cars DO NOT SEE ME on the bike. They are completely blind to my existence. That is why I go on the sidewalks when convenient. There's a stretch of my route to work that has parked cars on a narrow street and no bike lane -- but it does have a sidewalk. Now, what would you do in this case? Are you going to stay in the street like a good little law-abiding citizen, attempting to dodge the parked cars AND moving vehicles simultaneously? Hell no. You go on the sidewalk and your worries are greatly reduced. I don't care if people don't like it. It keeps me out of the hospital. Oh yeah, and I've never hit a pedestrian on my bike. There are areas of the U of M campus where biking on the sidewalk is prohibited. These areas include parts Dinkytown and Washington Avenue between University and Harvard. Well, in these places, there is absolutely nowhere to ride your bike. You can't go on the sidewalks because The Man said so. You can't go in the street because there are no bike lanes, there are parked cars lining both sides, and you've got cars and buses barreling down the road -- for whose drivers, cyclists are the farthest thing from their minds. As you can imagine, I stayed on the sidewalks in these areas, taking it slow, and getting off the bike if necessary. I did get yelled at once by a rent-a-cop, but that was it.
David, your words: ...I'm not that concerned with statistics... ...like a good little law-abiding citizen... ...I don't care if people don't like it... ...because The Man said so... Wow, such blatant contempt and scorn for anyone's rights and desires except your own...glad to get to know the real you. Mike Boguszewski In a message dated 7/22/2009 11:57:45 A.M. Central Daylight Time, <email obscured> writes: Note that I did preface my comments with "my two cents." I'm not that concerned with statistics. I've been riding to work for about six years, so I have a fair amount of experience. In my opinion, a bicycle is much closer to a pedestrian on foot than an automobile. Cyclists and pedestrians have roughly the same mass and visibility. I often tell my wife that my bike is better than the ring in Lord of the Rings because my bike actually exists. It makes me totally invisible to anyone driving a car. People in cars DO NOT SEE ME on the bike. They are completely blind to my existence. That is why I go on the sidewalks when convenient. There's a stretch of my route to work that has parked cars on a narrow street and no bike lane -- but it does have a sidewalk. Now, what would you do in this case? Are you going to stay in the street like a good little law-abiding citizen, attempting to dodge the parked cars AND moving vehicles simultaneously? Hell no. You go on the sidewalk and your worries are greatly reduced. I don't care if people don't like it. It keeps me out of the hospital. Oh yeah, and I've never hit a pedestrian on my bike. There are areas of the U of M campus where biking on the sidewalk is prohibited. These areas include parts Dinkytown and Washington Avenue between University and Harvard. Well, in these places, there is absolutely nowhere to ride your bike. You can't go on the sidewalks because The Man said so. You can't go in the street because there are no bike lanes, there are parked cars lining both sides, and you've got cars and buses barreling down the road -- for whose drivers, cyclists are the farthest thing from their minds. As you can imagine, I stayed on the sidewalks in these areas, taking it slow, and getting off the bike if necessary. I did get yelled at once by a rent-a-cop, but that was it. David Moufang Roseville Info about David Moufang: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/davidmoufang View all messages on this topic at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/48TCLMtYPxgUl4Kboxmjko
----------------------------------------- To post, e-mail: <email obscured> Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" in subject, then send to: <email obscured> More information about Roseville Issues Forum: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules ----------------------------------------- Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net Roseville Issues Forum http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html **************What's for dinner tonight? Find quick and easy dinner ideas for any occasion. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?ncid=emlcntusfood00000008)
Let's all just take a breather here kids and if you would like to badger one another, please take it outside (or offline). David - I'm sorry you do not feel safe in traffic. Many people do not feel comfortable, which mainly derives from a continuous us vs. them mentality. I know your n=1 tells you that being on the sidewalk is safe for you but the statistics are what they are. I would like to suggest you take a look at the defensive cycling courses that are being offered throughout Minnesota in the near future. These courses take you out into the roads to try and show how cars and bicycles should share lanes of traffic and also defensive maneuvers you may need in the event of an inattentive driver of a motor vehicle. I can use your example of Washington Ave as an example because I am failing to think of a similar example in Roseville. It is dangerous to bike on the sidewalk there because of the high pedestrian load. They are narrow and should not support bike traffic. You then have two lanes, one of which is primarily taken up by parked cars. You should ride in the right lane, splitting the distance that is left so that you are out of the door zone and will prevent vehicles from squeezing in the lane with you. The more you drive your bicycle like you would drive your car, the safer it is for everyone because you are behaving in a predictable manner. There are many people that do not feel safe biking unless they are on separate infrastructure. Once you get them on the road, it only takes a chance encounter with an impatient driver of a motor vehicle swearing or honking that will knock them right back to the sidewalk. Both drivers of cars and bicycles need to be educated in order to improve relations. There are several groups that are pursuing the education avenue - Bike Ambassadors in Minneapolis, several bike shops and also the Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota. If you are interested in taking a cycling course (offered for drivers of bicycles OR cars), I'm sure it would be pretty easy to set something up in Roseville. // I am affiliated with BAM and am a cycling instructor.
Nicole, thanks for your comments. I understand completely the school of thought that says bicycles should behave like cars because it makes them highly visible and predictable. It makes sense. However, I still don't trust it. I'm not the only one who's pretty adamant about the exact opposite school of thought. Sounds like you understand that too. When I read stories about cyclists being struck and killed by motorists, I'm always interested to read what exactly the cyclist was doing at the time. Some news reports include that information, others do not. And this is all anecdotal, but in most of the stories I can remember, cyclists were doing things that put them directly in harm's way. Seems like most of these accidents could have been prevented.
Loading…
Design Party? Join our Projects volunteer online group to help design a new image for your local forum's home page.
Home - Mobile - Forums - Wiki - Blog - About - Help - Contact - People - Donate - Rules - Archives
Need help? Get support.
Creative Commons - Share our content with attribution
Hosted by E-Democracy.org. Sponsored by OnlineGroups.Net - easier email collaboration for your organization. Powered by GroupServer - open source web-based mailing list manager.