[*BCM*] BTD PED Rules

[Jim Leonard]

On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 10:18:54PM -0400, Turtle wrote:
> On 6/4/07, Jim Leonard <jim_bcm at xuth.net> wrote:
> >
> >Turtle,
> >I understand what you're saying, but I must disagree with you on this.
> >
> >First at it's simplest I can completely disrupt traffic by moving at
> >0.3 mph on a busy narrow road and while it's completely antisocial, it
> >is still within your rules.  More realistic is the person who is
> >unable to move faster than this but is still given the full right to
> >disrupt traffic.
> 
> 
> This happens now anyway.  We get traffic jams all the time!  So my set of
> laws wouldn't make that problem any worse...

I've been in very few traffic jams that move slower than walking speed 
over any significant length of time.

> 
> What would help in either my scenario or the current one, would be to create
> better engineered roads, with at least two travel lanes in each direction,
> one for normal traffic and one for passing.  (Adding more efficient public
> transit would clearly help a hell of a lot too!) Most current roadways
> wouldn't need any extra width than they already have to create two full
> travel lanes in each direction if you add the sidewalk or shoulder to the
> road width.

Except that you need visibility around corners, otherwise no intersection 
is safe.  You need at least as much space as your eyes are set back from
the front of the vehicle plus a safe stopping speed plus a margin for
error.  So your travel lanes become completely unusable by larger
vehicles.  I wouldn't ride a bicycle down the traffic lane you've
described.

> 
> Also, allowing equal access to travel lanes doesn't preclude having other
> spaces for more chaotic local commerce.  Imagine Downtown Crossing as it is
> now, then remove the hardline curbs, and plunk my laws into the scenario.
> In dense urban districts with a lot of pedestrian traffic and lots of local
> commerce, everyone already has to move slowly and carefully anyway (which is
> as it should be for healthy and safe communities).  

In this situation, I largely agree with you.  

> While in more empty
> areas and on rural roads, traffic can move more smoothly and quickly, since
> there will be less cross traffic, which is also how it is now.

Faster than a walking pace, yes, acceptable for anything approaching
modern commerce, no.


> 
> The thing is, my set of laws are really what we've all already come up with,
> as unwritten rules of the road.  The only addition that I see necessary is
> making those unwritten, human-nature rules official, and making it clear
> that ALL road users have the same rights and the same responsibilities while
> using the roads.
> 
> Also, studies have shown that when people are expected to make their own
> decisions, and are help responsible for the consequences for those
> decisions, they make far better decisions than when someone else tries to
> foist one-size-fits-all decisions on them.  And that's what I'm trying to
> work with here.

Your rules are fairly one size fits all and by your rules, the smaller
you are the less accountable you are.  Under things like the Uniform 
Vehicle Code (which MA laws do not comply with) on a properly marked
road (which again, MA fails), where people actively try to follow the 
posted rules which are enforced relatively consistantly (do I really 
need to say anything about MA on this count?) traffic movement is rather 
efficient for both pedestrians and vehicles, and is very safe.  This
is the exact opposite of what you're proposing, but it does work in
the spaces that take the effort to make it extremely clear and easy to
know where I'm supposed to be to travel safely.  While I believe that
what you are proposing could be made safe, I'm suggesting that in most
cases, what I'm describing is just as safe but much more efficient at
moving people and goods.


> >On a complete tangent, thinking about the utility of separating
> >vehicles by speed, I find myself lamenting that I'm in a place with no
> >bike paths.  Yes there are several multiuse paths, but no place where
> >bicyclists have the right of way.  When I lived in Columbus, it was
> >often worth my while to get onto one of the bike paths because it was
> >safe and useful.  I could travel at reasonable bicycle speeds and not
> >have to worry about pedestrians or worse, their pets.
> 
> 
> But, but, but... bicyclists have the right of way all the time on public
> roads!  It's pretty much the first-come-first-served rule on most roads, so
> once you get into a travel lane, you've got the right of way (until you come
> to an intersection, where there are probably signs and signals that tell you
> when your turn to get the right-of-way).

And you know how well some motorists deal with cyclists.  Since moving to
MA, as a cyclist, I've been run off of the road, told I wasn't
supposed to be on the road and been told I didn't have the same rights
as a motor vehicle and all of the above by Cambridge and Somerville
police officers!  So in a city with fewer bicyclists, an actual,
honest to god, bike path was quite welcome and useful to me, especially
since it could be made to be on the way of most of the longer trips I
took. 

--jim

> 
> -Turtle
> who notes that about 90% of travelers choose not to stop for the stop sign
> next to her house, yet the intersection manages to have an infinitesimal
> number of crashes!  So, removing the stop signs AND telling people that it's
> their job to not hit anyone in the intesection probably wouldn't make much
> of a difference, and it would save money on signage, would eliminate the
> psychosis caused by people trying to repress the fact that they are
> "criminals" for blowing through the stop sign, and it might even improve
> things a bit by clarifying what people's responsibilites are...

> _______________________________________________
> Boston Critical Mass mailing list
> list at bostoncriticalmass.org
> http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
> To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org