HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/6/2018 Item 12, Schmidt (7)
Christian, Kevin
From:Richard Schmidt <slobuild@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Agenda Item 12
Attachments:council rands attack.pdf
Dear Council,
Please see attached for more detail on issues of the "preferred" alternative. Mr. Rands' odd and inaccurate attack on my
alleged accuracy has offered this opening to add more detail to a discussion I'd thought was over with.
Richard Schmidt
1
RE: Item 12 – Barry Randsʼ misleading critique of my safety concerns
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
When one writes and publishes something controversial, one exposes oneself to attack
for those views. Thatʼs part of the game, and I expected that I would be subject to
argument and critique for writing something as challenging to the bike lobbyʼs views as
my article on the poor safety of the proposed cycle tracks, an article the Tribʼs web
editorʼs lead-in said described a “mishmash of traffic hazards” – not my words, but a
wonderful summary!
Nonetheless, when oneʼs credibility and truthfulness are systematically and repeatedly
attacked, as they have been by Barry Rands both on-air on KVEC and in his letter to
you, thatʼs another matter altogether, especially if the attack is based on distortions.
Mr. Rands attacks me for inaccuracies. Bottom line, he quibbles with some of the
wording in my article – and perhaps it could have been more elegant and detailed, but
there are word-count limitations and deadlines on Viewpoint articles, so perfection is
unlikely – and on-air claimed Iʼd said things I didnʼt – like that I attributed certain facts to
NACTO, which I did not. Bottom line, his attempts to undermine my credibility are nit-
picking at lint in the crevices of my article. Even he apparently does not wish to
challenge the articleʼs main premise, that whatʼs being offered is sub-optimal bike
infrastructure experts would shun and will be dangerous.
Mr. Randsʼ letter to you includes many inaccuracies of its own, which seems odd for a
stickler for “accuracy” from others.
Here are some examples:
1. He disputes my saying two-way cycle tracks are dangerous. He then cites NACTO as
evidence, saying that NACTO actually has design guidance for 2-way cycle tracks. In
fact, however, NACTO, which while important in engineering circles is hardly at the
forefront of the best bike design, qualifies its advice about such tracks.
First, here is NACTOʼs first photographic example of a 2-way track in the guidance
Rands cites:
This is not a rinky-dink on-pavement track likeʼs proposed on Chorro and Ramona, but
one entirely off the street, behind the sidewalk where itʼs well-protected from traffic. The
term “cycle track” applies to such as well as to on-road tracks. My concerns are with the
on-road form, which is what weʼre talking about in Anholm.
NACTOʼs guidance has a long list of “typical applications” for 2-way tracks. Here are the
first 4:
Hey, look whatʼs first? A warning about driveways!
The other rationales for this questionable design are pretty clear – you use where it
actually makes unique sense: where it hooks into other facilities (like in the Davis
example photo I sent you), where the places cyclists go are mainly on one side of street
(same Davis example – the school), etc. You donʼt, as in the Anholm design, start it,
stop it, start it again in a confusing disorderly mishmash that complicates this
techniqueʼs inherent unsafety on residential streets with driveways by also forcing
cyclists into dangerous diagonal backs-and-forths through traffic.
Anyway, NACTO is not the ultimate source on this issue. Other experts are much more
skeptical about and derogatory of 2-way on-road tracks.
Randsʼ point that some American cities use 2-way cycle tracks is irrelevant to the safety
discussion because
• We donʼt know how or where those are used. The Tucson photo certainly isnʼt what
our staff is talking about in Anholm.
• Just because something exists doesnʼt mean itʼs good.
2. In criticizing my stating good cycle tracks have substantial buffers between bikes and
traffic (again, look at examples in my photo email), Randsʼ again cites NACTOʼs
minimalist idea of whatʼs safe (minimal buffer and plastic vertical things), and says thatʼs
how your cycle tracks will be built. In fact, he seems unaware what your proposed
design actually includes – plastic things like he describes at first later replaced by
concrete curbs. I asked Luke for clarification on this at the time the staff report changed
nomenclature from “cycle tracks” to “protected bikeways” (which it turns out are the
same thing). This is what he said:
As you know from my article, many experts consider curbs a hazard in their own right.
As for the plastic vertical things, does anybody really think those flimsies offer protection
from vehicles?
3. Rands would have you disbelieve my statement that the Federal Highway
Administration lists 2-way cycle tracks as a practice to avoid. Hereʼs what they actually
say in their bike planning tutorial:
19.5 Practices To Be Avoided
Two-Way Bike Lane
This creates a dangerous condition for bicyclists. It encourages illegal riding against traffic,
causing several problems:
•At intersections and driveways, wrong-way riders approach from a direction where they are
not visible to motorists.
•Bicyclists closest to the motor vehicle lane have opposing motor vehicle traffic on one side
and opposing bicycle traffic on the other.
•Bicyclists are put into awkward positions when transitioning back to standard bikeways.
Rands seizes on the word “lane” and would have you believe use of the term “Two-Way
Bike Lane” gives 2-way cycle tracks a get out of jail card. Sorry, but FWHA – and most
others -- consider on-road cycle tracks a particular type of bike lane – as commonsense
tells us they are. Their precautionary advisory applies here.
Far from indicating I have distorted what FWHA says, their points of caution reinforce
dangers that my article states.
4. Rands alleges my comments about whatʼs proposed for Broad are a
misrepresentation of the project since I call it a cycle track and he says it will be a
normal bike lane not a “protected” lane or cycle track.
Hereʼs what the latest plans show:
Thatʼs clearly a cycle track. In its preliminary form, it shows plastic thingies. Note Lukeʼs
explanation above that the plan is to install a curb in the future. I truthfully donʼt
understand the significance of my criticʼs tortured distinction that a regular cycle lane
needs less safety buffer than a cycle track. I thought safety was the whole point.
In any event, Mr. Randsʼ implied endorsement of buffers as skinny as 18” is troubling. I
find the thought of an 18” buffer between bikes and cars horrifying. Measure 18” and
ask yourself: Does that tiny amount of space offer safety to bicyclists. At least youʼre not
talking about going that small!
So, I thank Mr. Rands for creating the opportunity to further attempt to educate the
Mayor and Council on these important safety matters, and the deficiencies of the
“preferred” alternative.
Whatʼs being proposed is not a safe and low-stress ride. Please move on to something
better.
Richard Schmidt