A couple of highlights:

Forward focus is your priority in a complex streetscape. Leaving a bike lane to avoid a potential conflict requires scanning behind you to negotiate before moving left. Any time a series of potential conditions would cause you to move in and out of a bike lane every 15 seconds (that’s common with a city street grid, it also happens on trash day), it’s easier and more predictable just to stay out.

… and …

Exceptions or not, the far right and mandatory bike lane laws repress defensive driving practices for the drivers who are most exposed, passed with the highest speed differentials, create the least impact upon the system, and are the least likely to threaten the safety of others. These laws are egregious. The costs of having to fight an unjust and unwarranted citation in a potentially-biased court are onerous. This creates conditions for targeted harassment, such as Fred has suffered in Port Orange, Ormond Beach and recently Daytona Beach. Exceptions or not, they make us second class citizens.

Technorati Tags: bicycle advocacy, bicycle infrastructure, bicycle politics, bicycle safety, cycling, Transportation Planning

Apparently, yes. This is partly a case of attempting to criminalize speech for political purposes.

Although it also appears apparent that you’ll “win” even if the worst should happen.

What’s the law in Missouri?

Practice as professional engineer defined–use of titles, restrictions.

327.181. 1. Any person practices in Missouri as a professional engineer who renders or offers to render or holds himself or herself out as willing or able to render any service or creative work, the adequate performance of which requires engineering education, training, and experience in the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences to such services or creative work as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning and design of engineering works and systems, engineering teaching of advanced engineering subjects or courses related thereto, engineering surveys, the coordination of services furnished by structural, civil, mechanical and electrical engineers and other consultants as they relate to engineering work and the inspection of construction for the purpose of compliance with drawings and specifications, any of which embraces such service or work either public or private, in connection with any utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, work systems or projects and including such architectural work as is incidental to the practice of engineering; or who uses the title “professional engineer” or “consulting engineer” or the word “engineer” alone or preceded by any word indicating or implying that such person is or holds himself or herself out to be a professional engineer, or who shall use any word or words, letters, figures, degrees, titles or other description indicating or implying that such person is a professional engineer or is willing or able to practice engineering.

2. Notwithstanding any provision of subsection 1 of this section, any person using the word “engineer”, “engineers”, or “engineering”, alone or preceded by any word, or in combination with any words, may do so without being subject to disciplinary action by the board so long as such use is reflective of that person’s profession or vocation and is clearly not indicating or implying that such person is holding himself or herself out as being a professional engineer or is willing or able to practice engineering as defined in this section.

Unauthorized practice prohibited, persons excepted.

327.191. No person shall practice as a professional engineer in Missouri, as defined in section 327.181 unless and until there is issued to such person a professional license or a certificate of authority certifying that such person has been duly licensed as a professional engineer or authorized to practice engineering in Missouri, and unless such license or certificate has been renewed as provided in section 327.261; provided that section 327.181 shall not be construed to prevent the practice of engineering by the following persons:

(1) Any person who is an employee of a person holding a currently valid license as a professional engineer or who is an employee of a person holding a currently valid certificate of authority pursuant to this chapter, and who performs professional engineering work under the direction and continuing supervision of and is checked by one holding a currently valid license as a professional engineer pursuant to this chapter;

(2) Any person who is a regular full-time employee of a person or any former employee under contract to a person, who performs professional engineering work for such employer if and only if all such work and service so performed is done solely in connection with a facility owned or wholly operated by the employer and occupied or maintained by the employer of the employee performing such work or service;

(3) Any person engaged in engineering who is a full-time, regular employee of a person engaged in manufacturing operations and which engineering so performed by such person relates to the manufacture, sale or installation of the products of such person;

(4) Any holder of a currently valid license or certificate of authority as an architect who performs only such engineering work as is incidental and necessary to the completion of architectural work lawfully being performed by such architect;

(5) Any person or corporation who is offering, but not performing or rendering, professional engineering services if the person or corporation is licensed to practice professional engineering in the state or country of residence or principal place of business.

Don’t you just love legal language

I think it is entirely possible someone with a bug up his/her ass could file a complaint about me. I hold the super important and prestigious title of chairman of the engineering committee for the STAR Team of Ozark Greenways — I insisted on Grand Pubah, but no one listened I once submitted a drawing of a proposed bicycle corral (that — GADZOOKS! — included actual measurements) to a local merchant so that merchant could make an argument to the city and local downtown civic groups for building such a thing. I have absolutely no qualifications as an engineer as reinforced by my life-long aversion to anything having to do with math.

What protects me: The bike/ped community and the City of Springfield (especially the planning and engineering people) have a good working relationship built on mutual respect.

Technorati Tags: bicycle advocacy, bicycle infrastructure, bicycle politics, cycling, transportation, Transportation Planning, Urban Planning

I was only able to be there for the first 30 minutes — needed to get home before the storm, seeing as how I drove my bicycle to the event. It gave me an opportunity to talk about the virtues of good rain gear

Check out the report by KY3 television.

Technorati Tags: bicycle advocacy, bicycle infrastructure, cycling, Transportation Planning, Urban Planning

But it is clear that many bicycle advocates believe that providing such infrastructure as bicycle lanes, tracks, and separated paths does increase participation. According to recent studies, it’s not entirely clear what the cause-and-effect relationship actually is between infrastructure and participation.

I think it is especially difficult to measure participation across purposes. Bicycle commuting is a particular purpose. Recreation is a particular purpose. Exercise is a particular purpose. Basic transportation ( or utility bicycling) is a particular purpose. It seems to me that each of these purposes has particular constituencies. And some bicyclists — your author, for example — is a member of more than one.

In order to increase participation through infrastructure, transportation planners must first understand infrastructure in the context of particular purposes. That seems like a truism and an interesting technical/engineering puzzle. But, again, I’m not all that interested because I think this may be true: Participation across purposes (but especially the transportation purposes) requires proximity and population density first and traffic education before infrastructure.

I’ve told this story before: When I moved to Springfield from Kansas City I was aware that I was moving to a flat town with a grid street system. I made the conscious decision to live within 2 miles of my job (actually .75 to work and 2.25 to downtown) so that it would be easier to walk and ride a bicycle. If I had chosen instead to live in the southern suburbs, I doubt very seriously that I would be typing these words to you now. I’d be a regular automobile commuter just as I was in Kansas City. Further, when I arrived here I was a novice rider. I had plenty of experience as a kid, so I rode as a child often rides (thankfully I new which side of the street to ride on!). It took a couple of years of before I “grew up” fully and took my proper place in traffic. I had to learn it by doing it, by experiencing it. What allowed that process to occur? Proximity. Living close to my destinations made bicycling an easy choice.

If, instead, I had chosen to live in the suburbs, would bicycle lanes have lured me onto the road? That’s difficult to say. But I doubt it due to the question of proximity.

A better plan for Springfield:

1. Forget bicycle lanes.

2. Keep building greenways (primarily for recreation).

3. Improve the urban core and encourage people and businesses to locate there.

Obviously, this does nothing to encourage suburban residents to ride bicycles for transportation, and — Gadzooks! — it’s decidedly long-term thinking. Methinks $5 gas might encourage suburbanites first to move closer to their primary destinations. From there they may venture onto bicycles.

Technorati Tags: bicycle advocacy, bicycle commuting, bicycle infrastructure, bicycle politics, bicycle trails, cycling, Transportation Planning, Urban Planning, utility cycling

From the website:

The City presently has a Bicycle Plan, a Greenways Plan and miscellaneous pedestrian policies and manuals.  Our goal is a comprehensive strategy that updates these plans and adds a formal Pedestrian Plan.

This project is in response to:

• a Field Guide 2030 (Springfield’s strategic plan) goal for a complete street policy and improved facilities for walking and bicycling.
• citizen comments revealing a desire for more emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle transportation as part of both community planning and transportation projects.

Technorati Tags: bicycle advocacy, bicycle infrastructure, cycling, Transportation Planning, Urban Planning