birdtree

And here in NEO, we now have the Great Lakes Courier, which I think covers most of the subcultures you mentioned 8-) http://greatlakescourier.com/

I like the way you worded that because it could apply both ways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet

I thought I'd share what's going on in Lakewood. Lakewood has issued a Bicycle Master Plan for comment and has a public work session planned for Thursday, December 1st 2011. http://blog.onelakewood.com/2011/11/bikelakewood-bicycle-master-plan-draft.html The plan has some worrying features that may discourage cycling, like mandatory bicycle registration(actually already an ordinance, but no one knows about it or complies) and targeted cycling specific traffic crackdowns. I know I come across as an insufferable pedant, but here are the comments I submitted __________________________________________________________________________________________ · On page 6, the third rules on the road paragraph, I recommend changing the some of the wording from “as near to the right side of the road as possible” to “as near to the right side of the road as practicable, except when hazardous conditions or objects make it unreasonable or unsafe to do so” to be consistent with the city ordinance (373.07). “As near to the right as possible” language often encourages unsafe riding practices in inexperienced riders since riding too near curbs and parked cars leaves little room to react to danger. · On page 23, the Shared Use Lanes section, I recommend changing wording from “Develop a Network Composed Entirely of Shared Use Lanes” to “Develop a Network of Shared Use Lanes”. And I recommend removing the language “Given that Lakewood’s streets are not wide enough to accommodate segregated bicycle lanes” and stating instead that For Now, Lakewood thinks the best plan forward is shared use lanes-or something like that. I doubt that many communities and cities that now have bicycle lanes had extra available infrastructure or space they happily turned into segregated or marked bicycle lanes, but some made it a priority. I agree with the current plan forward for sharrows, but I don’t think the city should rule out bicycle lanes in the future and I think that the current language is unnecessarily restrictive. · On page 24, Proposed Enforcement Guidelines, I recommend completely removing or dramatically altering this section. o Page 24, remove bullet 1, Rationale: Enforcement of traffic laws in Lakewood should always be focused on ALL vehicles using the roadways – this includes bicycles and motorized vehicles. o Bullet 2: I recommend removing this bullet and part of the plan: ”Conduct multiple Bicycle Enforcement Studies by choosing a widely used bicycle intersection and enforcing bike laws”. Rationale: If police resources are to be used for any special enforcement activities, they should be used where, practically and statistically, they can do the most good. A quick look at accident statistics might suggest, for example, that motor vehicle speeding or DUI pose a much greater risk to overall population health and safety than bicycles. Again, the purpose of this plan should be to encourage bicycling in Lakewood, and enforcement targeted specifically at cyclists while at the same time stating “we want Lakewood to be the most bike-friendly city in Ohio” will likely just fire up advocacy groups. Look at the backlash from the recent police bicycle lane crackdown in NYC this past summer. Again, I fully support enforcing ALL traffic laws, for cyclists and motorists, but I think enforcement activities targeted at cyclists in particular would be counterproductive and actually discourage cycling in Lakewood. o Bullet 3: Enforce bicycle registration requirements, this is probably an issue that goes beyond the Bicycle Master Plan, but I recommend removing the ordinance that requires bicycle registration. The League of American Cyclists, in its official position paper on the subject states “When done properly, bicycle registration can be an effective tool”,but it recommends that the program be “statewide, as opposed to local” and that “mandatory bicycle registration should be imposed only where the benefits of and/or necessity for such ordinances are demonstrable and where the penalties for violation are minimal”. § I question whether a local program is effective for Lakewood and think the following data would be helpful: what has been the cost of the Lakewood mandatory bicycle registration program to date; what is the revenue to date; what have been the realized benefits of the program to date – actual stolen bicycles returned, injured cyclists identified, etc. § The other problem with mandatory bicycle registration programs is that they often discourage cycling and reduce the number of cyclists on the roads. The following links show the position of bicycle advocates and recent outcomes on this issue: · League of American Cyclists Position Paper: http://www.bikeleague.org/about/positions/registration.php · The Case for and against bicycle Licenses: http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2011/10/12/the-case-for-and-against-bicycle-licences-in-calgary/ · Bikelaws.org rating of Lakewood (B-, partially due to registration program) http://bikelaws.org/neo-bikelaws.htm#Lakewood · http://www.urbanvelo.org/issue6/urbanvelo6_p56-57.html http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadrights/2011/07/29/license-to-ride-2/ § For these reasons, I recommend removing language of the bicycle registration program from the Bicycle Master Plan. o Page 24, proposed bike violation fees. I support adding ordinances to have a fee assigned to bike violations (especially one requiring lights at night)– but wouldn’t these already be applicable since bicycles are required to obey traffic laws anyway? o Page 24, Outreach Initiatives, I recommend (instead of one of the other initiatives that costs money like t-shirts or bike maps) a free bike light program. This article references a few recent successful free light programs http://www.ecovelo.info/2011/11/18/stealth-bicyclists-2/ . “Studies have shown that a majority of fatal collisions involving bicyclists occur between the hours of 6pm-9pm. I’m not surprised. Unfortunately, most of these bicyclists without lights appear to be “non-enthusiast” (for lack of a better term), so it’s unlikely they have access to the information or resources necessary to ride safely”. More than anything, I think a free bike light program would encourage and improve bicycle safety in Lakewood and would provide much more interest (free lights are more exciting for cyclists than free pamphlets or t-shirts) at outreach events. LED lights are now surprisingly effective and affordable. o Page 24, I think we need better outreach education on the dangers of cycling on the sidewalk. While it is legal in Lakewood, studies have shown that it is 2-4 times more dangerous to cycle on the sidewalk than on the road. I have seen pamphlets describing this at the Cleveland metroparks, so information is available. I have a couple questions as well: · This plan mentions the City of Cleveland Complete Streets ordinance. Does Lakewood have a complete streets ordinance? Should we look into one? · Is the plan for the Detroit and Madison sharrows to be “no further than 250 feet apart” as stated on page 23?

$695K is supposedly the asking price for the building.

I know there are several people from Lakewood on here. Saw this on a bike ride last night. Uploaded with ImageShack.us a couple page links: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Im-hatin-the-idea-of-a-McDonalds-on-Detroit/129706907105584 http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Save-the-Detroit-Theatre/229255040434733

I attended the public meeting last night in Cleveland. The presentation by the study contractor helped me to understand the purpose and scope of the project, and there was some good discussion afterward, but turnout was pretty low. This study boils down to the fact that the eventual commuter transportation selection could be eligible for federal funding for up to 50% of infrastructure costs. I'm all for it, although what I really want (rail rapid through Lakewood) is kind of out of scope for this project. Here are some links to more info. I recommend taking the survey since it will help guide the contractor in the study! West Shore Commuter Rail Survey: http://surveymonkey.com/s/wctp FacebooK http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpages%2FWestShore-Commuter-Rail-Task-Force%2F127439217285152&ei=gueQTLOjA4menQeawNy0DA&usg=AFQjCNFgvCWWkF6KPc3jEs144vdI12Tlxw&sig2=wh9Grfsg12GOkGAA0GToyQ Website (not active yet?) http://www.ridewestshore.com/