Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on March 7, 2013 at 8:07pm

Perhaps narrower lanes would have slowed him down enough that the crash wouldn't have happened. Anyway, that cabbie was an outlier. Narrow lanes will reduce speeding in general, reucing the crash rate.

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on March 8, 2013 at 5:12am

Amsden mentioned that intersection improvements, including bike lanes striped through the intersections, would be part of the project, in keeping with with Milwaukee's classification as a Spoke Route bike-priority commuting street. And if we can get more people cycling, that means folks will burn more calories, which will help eliminate belly bulges.

Permalink Reply by Juan Primo on March 8, 2013 at 5:13am

Narrower lanes can also mean less margin for error.

John Greenfield said:

 Narrow lanes will reduce speeding in general, reucing the crash rate.

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on March 8, 2013 at 5:18am

Nah, statistics show that narrower lanes = less crashes. It's a bit counter-intuitive, I know. Historically American roadways have been designed with the philosophy that giving drivers more elbow room makes things safer. In reality, that only makes people feel comfortable speeding, which makes conditions more dangerous for everybody in the end.

Permalink Reply by Tim S on March 8, 2013 at 5:33am

I thought that the case was still open and the cab may have experienced a malfunction?

John Greenfield said:

Kevin,

Narrower travel lanes due to the protected bike lanes will discourage speeding - they might have made a difference in that case.

- John Greenfield

Permalink Reply by Adam Herstein on March 8, 2013 at 5:40am

Even a road that looks narrower is safer. I've found that drivers tent to give me much more space on Wells and Wabash – under the 'L' tracks – than on other streets of similar width. The supports are in the middle of the lane, so visually the road looks narrower. I don't get quite the same treatment on other streets of equal width but with no 'L' supports.

John Greenfield said:

Nah, statistics show that narrower lanes = less crashes. It's a bit counter-intuitive, I know. Historically American roadways have been designed with the philosophy that giving drivers more elbow room makes things safer. In reality, that only makes people feel comfortable speeding, which makes conditions more dangerous for everybody in the end.

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on March 8, 2013 at 5:47am

Tim,

Yes, the case is still open, so I said that narrower lanes *might* have made a difference. Obviously, if it was really the case that the driver wasn't intentionally speeding and the cab was malfunctioning, then narrower lanes wouldn't have made a difference.

- John Greenfield

Permalink Reply by Juan Primo on March 8, 2013 at 5:51am

Statistics prove every point.

John Greenfield said:

Nah, statistics show that narrower lanes = less crashes. It's a bit counter-intuitive, I know. Historically American roadways have been designed with the philosophy that giving drivers more elbow room makes things safer. In reality, that only makes people feel comfortable speeding, which makes conditions more dangerous for everybody in the end.

Permalink Reply by Mike Zumwalt on March 9, 2013 at 2:20pm

Yeah but he was sitting or standing waiting for the bus. The cab went Hollywood style up on the curb to hit him. A plastic pylon will do nothing.

I'm not against the protected lanes but when people are walking,jogging, parking and they look like this...Saturday the 9th4 days after a storm with sun and temps in the 30's 40's with CDOT supposedly maintaining them. I'd rather ride in the regular bike lanes.

John Greenfield said:

Mike,

The less congested an area is, the more people speed, so protected lanes make sense on Milwaukee south of Wicker Park as well. After all, that's where one of the city's worst intersections for bike crashes, Milwaukee/Chicago, is - that's where a pedestrian was killed by a speeding cab last summer.

- John Greenfield

Permalink Reply by Juan Primo on March 9, 2013 at 2:46pm

To me, Mike Z's pics show a point against PBL's.  If we had a regular bike lane there, parked cars would be in the muck and biking would clear.  No one would ride that lane, so taking the "car lane" would be the best bet.

Another reality (but still an opinion) is that the city is not good at providing services.  PBL's are a recent invention and Chicago hasn't figured it out.  I contend that Rahm made that "we have x miles of new bike lane", so his promise is made.  The lanes won't be plowed, the city won't sweep them, taxis will always drop off fares in them, and cyclists will be less safe because they will avoid them. 

Finally,  if we have segregated bike lanes, cyclists will lose the right to use the "car lanes".  PBL's are a step backward, yet Active Trans is advocating them.

Permalink Reply by Juan Primo on March 9, 2013 at 3:40pm

Daniel:  Half assed engineering is not going to grow the bike population.  Government does not create cyclists.  In fact, assigning cyclists the worst part of the street will turn people off from cycling.

PBL's are utopian, but they wish away the realities of the street.

Permalink Reply by Kevin K on March 9, 2013 at 4:44pm

If the City of Chicago passed such a law it would be a clear "Compensation Event" and any increased expenses borne by Chicago Parking Meters in the course of complying with the law would have to be reimbursed to them by the City, as "Concession Compensation." 

So bottom line, any and all costs of complying with that law, or any similar law, would be paid by the City.  It wouldn't cost Chicago Parking Meters a dime.

http://www.chicagoreader.com/old-blog-media/pdf/chgo_parking_agree.pdf

David crZven 10.6 said:

Yes.  Its a terrible parking contract.  It is easy to fix, but the city will not do it.   All it takes is the following piece of legislation.:

All entities that charge fees for more than 3,000 parking spaces within the city of Chicago must either maintain at least one live individual during the hours of 9am to 9pm within 1 mile of every such space or must contract with the City of Chicago to provide contact services at a fee of $10.00 per parking space per day.   

The justification.   If you park in a garage and you have a problem, you have a live person to talk to, and if necessary, physically show them the problem.  With Laz, you have a "phone call" access only which requires a phone and does not allow the parker the ability to show the physical problem.

Laz would, very quickly, want to break its contract with the City at this point and this STUPID contact would no longer stand in the way of things such as eliminating parking on large stretches of Lincoln to improve bicycling.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page