🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <D2150035.67h33p@outpost.SF-Bay.org> peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jun16.210629.11796@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> (rec.bicycles,ca.environment,ba.transportation), les@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest) writes:
>> In fact, Palo Alto is a prime example of excessive stop sign
>> installation.  ... Many of their decisions to install such signs
>> appear to be the result of neighborhood pressure groups who want to
>> interfere with any traffic on "their" street and many more are the
>> product of Palo Alto's runaway traffic planning office.

>One person's "neighborhood pressure group" is another's "group of
>concerned parents."  

>What's your hurry?

Problem is, people riding bicycles must obey those signs, too, though
cyclists tend not to run down small children, and tend not to hurt
them quite so badly when they do.  Cyclists don't have quite the
power-to-weight ratio of automobiles, so it takes them somewhat longer
to reach their cruising speed, so it adds more time to a trip on a
bicycle than it does to a trip in a car (though as a proportion of
total travel time, the car may suffer more delay).

There are other choices besides stop signs that do not polace such a
burden on bicycles.  Cars could be encouraged to slow down by
providing a lower speed limit (20 mph, for example) and enforcing it.
Or, the road could be converted into a bicycle boulevard with car
barriers placed every once in a while.  Or, speed bumps (with gaps for
bicycles) could be provided to discourage speeding.  Or, bicycles
could be held to a different standard of stopping, seeing as how they
are much lighter and smaller, and hence are less dangerous to others
(never mind that (generally speaking, of course -- everyone knows that
all USENET readers are extremely conscientious drivers) someone on a
bicycle has a greater incentive to avoid a collision than someone
driving a car).

David Chase
Sun