<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: California traffic signals should detect bikes</title>
	<atom:link href="http://amateurearthling.org/2009/08/10/california-traffic-signals-should-detect-bikes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://amateurearthling.org/2009/08/10/california-traffic-signals-should-detect-bikes/</link>
	<description>We&#039;re all in this together.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 19:29:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zane Selvans</title>
		<link>http://amateurearthling.org/2009/08/10/california-traffic-signals-should-detect-bikes/comment-page-1/#comment-732</link>
		<dc:creator>Zane Selvans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:17:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://amateurearthling.org/?p=1554#comment-732</guid>
		<description>The composition of the committee was set in 1968 in its bylaws, which would themselves require a 2/3 majority to change, so alteration seems highly unlikely.  I suspect it&#039;s more likely that at some future date the committee itself would be dissolved (or otherwise cast into obscurity) by Caltrans, and replaced with another decision making body, hopefully having a broader constituency.  Maybe the California Complete Streets Standards Body... or something.  We can dream!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The composition of the committee was set in 1968 in its bylaws, which would themselves require a 2/3 majority to change, so alteration seems highly unlikely.  I suspect it&#8217;s more likely that at some future date the committee itself would be dissolved (or otherwise cast into obscurity) by Caltrans, and replaced with another decision making body, hopefully having a broader constituency.  Maybe the California Complete Streets Standards Body&#8230; or something.  We can dream!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nate</title>
		<link>http://amateurearthling.org/2009/08/10/california-traffic-signals-should-detect-bikes/comment-page-1/#comment-728</link>
		<dc:creator>Nate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:45:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://amateurearthling.org/?p=1554#comment-728</guid>
		<description>I hear that the CTCDC is actually &lt;i&gt;the&lt;/i&gt; committee on this, and that the CBAC only gets to make recommendations to it.  CalTrans basically does as the CTCDC says, and that they&#039;re basically clueless regarding bicyclist issues because they have no reason to take recommendations from the CTCDC.  

I hear that CBAC would actually like a voting membership on the CTCDC.  In my opinion, that, and cutting out the CHP (they&#039;re to enforce the law, not make it), cutting out at least one of the two auto votes, and mobilizing folks to influence the city folks, would seem to me a vast improvement...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hear that the CTCDC is actually <i>the</i> committee on this, and that the CBAC only gets to make recommendations to it.  CalTrans basically does as the CTCDC says, and that they&#8217;re basically clueless regarding bicyclist issues because they have no reason to take recommendations from the CTCDC.  </p>
<p>I hear that CBAC would actually like a voting membership on the CTCDC.  In my opinion, that, and cutting out the CHP (they&#8217;re to enforce the law, not make it), cutting out at least one of the two auto votes, and mobilizing folks to influence the city folks, would seem to me a vast improvement&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zane Selvans</title>
		<link>http://amateurearthling.org/2009/08/10/california-traffic-signals-should-detect-bikes/comment-page-1/#comment-727</link>
		<dc:creator>Zane Selvans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:48:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://amateurearthling.org/?p=1554#comment-727</guid>
		<description>Yeah, unfortunately I think it&#039;s going to take a lot more lobbying on our part before the state really is serious about complete streets, regardless of what the law says.  I used to be hopeful that higher oil prices would be enough, but I think it&#039;s clear now that plug-in hybrids and other very efficient vehicles will be able to displace urban petroleum consumption.  If we want livable streets, we&#039;re going to have to ask for them specifically.  Some encouraging moves in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/on-herald-squares-transformation-and-disappearing-traffic/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New York&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/san-francisco-carves-a-park-from-the-midst-of-its-pavement/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;San Francisco&lt;/a&gt; though.  Maybe it&#039;s not hopeless.  I dream of a Pasadena that feels like Barcelona.  Someday.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, unfortunately I think it&#8217;s going to take a lot more lobbying on our part before the state really is serious about complete streets, regardless of what the law says.  I used to be hopeful that higher oil prices would be enough, but I think it&#8217;s clear now that plug-in hybrids and other very efficient vehicles will be able to displace urban petroleum consumption.  If we want livable streets, we&#8217;re going to have to ask for them specifically.  Some encouraging moves in <a href="http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/on-herald-squares-transformation-and-disappearing-traffic/" rel="nofollow">New York</a> and <a href="http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/san-francisco-carves-a-park-from-the-midst-of-its-pavement/" rel="nofollow">San Francisco</a> though.  Maybe it&#8217;s not hopeless.  I dream of a Pasadena that feels like Barcelona.  Someday.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Erik</title>
		<link>http://amateurearthling.org/2009/08/10/california-traffic-signals-should-detect-bikes/comment-page-1/#comment-726</link>
		<dc:creator>Erik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:52:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://amateurearthling.org/?p=1554#comment-726</guid>
		<description>The first thing that comes to mind when I read this post is that both the CBC and CABO would not mind a seat in that committee. The second is that those same two organizations could do something about the sunset clause.

I note that AAA has two votes since So Cal and Cal both have seats on the committee.

If California were serious about &#039;complete streets&#039; they would not have both a highway committee and a BAC. Instead they would have one committee that was actually focused on including other vehicles.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The first thing that comes to mind when I read this post is that both the CBC and CABO would not mind a seat in that committee. The second is that those same two organizations could do something about the sunset clause.</p>
<p>I note that AAA has two votes since So Cal and Cal both have seats on the committee.</p>
<p>If California were serious about &#8216;complete streets&#8217; they would not have both a highway committee and a BAC. Instead they would have one committee that was actually focused on including other vehicles.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michelle W</title>
		<link>http://amateurearthling.org/2009/08/10/california-traffic-signals-should-detect-bikes/comment-page-1/#comment-723</link>
		<dc:creator>Michelle W</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:44:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://amateurearthling.org/?p=1554#comment-723</guid>
		<description>Anchorage avoids that problem by not having (to my knowledge) any signals that detect traffic (other than push buttons for walk signals).  All lights are timed.  There are times and places where this is annoying and has led me to run a light (when absolutely no cars were within a mile of the intersection) or a red hand (when biking on the path and my light turned green but my walk sign didn&#039;t come on due to no call from the push button - I make sure there is no turning traffic and I don&#039;t do it at the worst intersections or times of day)
I really, really do not like being a rule breaker - it is against my nature, but sometimes the idiocy of waiting with no reason gets the better of me.  In a system where peds (who can easily push a button as they walk by, and negotiate the block walls and other obstructions near the signal poles to do so) and, more especially, cars - which get the benefit of the doubt by numbers, rule the detection and direction game, biking will always be a bit frustrating and thus lead to rule breaking and other inopportune outcomes.  I often choose routes without the protection of signals to avoid the frustration of needless delays - but this isn&#039;t as safe in some ways.
I once wrote the DOT and asked why the signals in busy midtown didn&#039;t automatically assume peds and give a walk sign when the light turned green - like downtown lights do.  I was told that they were nominally timed for no peds, and to automatically take the extra time for a walk signal would annoy drivers.  There seem to be missing options here or a poor design.  Bikes can make it across an intersection faster than peds, in the time of the green light.  One option is to ride the road and catch the light, but Anchorage roads and drivers are scary enough to make that choice seem less good than the protected path, even with the signal issue.
But, rambling aside - bike representation and detection is necessary - good letter.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anchorage avoids that problem by not having (to my knowledge) any signals that detect traffic (other than push buttons for walk signals).  All lights are timed.  There are times and places where this is annoying and has led me to run a light (when absolutely no cars were within a mile of the intersection) or a red hand (when biking on the path and my light turned green but my walk sign didn&#8217;t come on due to no call from the push button &#8211; I make sure there is no turning traffic and I don&#8217;t do it at the worst intersections or times of day)<br />
I really, really do not like being a rule breaker &#8211; it is against my nature, but sometimes the idiocy of waiting with no reason gets the better of me.  In a system where peds (who can easily push a button as they walk by, and negotiate the block walls and other obstructions near the signal poles to do so) and, more especially, cars &#8211; which get the benefit of the doubt by numbers, rule the detection and direction game, biking will always be a bit frustrating and thus lead to rule breaking and other inopportune outcomes.  I often choose routes without the protection of signals to avoid the frustration of needless delays &#8211; but this isn&#8217;t as safe in some ways.<br />
I once wrote the DOT and asked why the signals in busy midtown didn&#8217;t automatically assume peds and give a walk sign when the light turned green &#8211; like downtown lights do.  I was told that they were nominally timed for no peds, and to automatically take the extra time for a walk signal would annoy drivers.  There seem to be missing options here or a poor design.  Bikes can make it across an intersection faster than peds, in the time of the green light.  One option is to ride the road and catch the light, but Anchorage roads and drivers are scary enough to make that choice seem less good than the protected path, even with the signal issue.<br />
But, rambling aside &#8211; bike representation and detection is necessary &#8211; good letter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
