Dammit, why did I read the comments?
This one is just scary:
sieben • 2 hours ago
“do we get extra points for mashing them in the bike lane or is it a penalty????
when the masses of bicyclists become educated and follow the rules of the road, then they will be respected. until then, they are bugs on the windshield..”
Whenever I see articles about new bike infrastructure or anything with cycling I just ignore the comments anymore. It makes my blood pressure go up reading comments from Knuckle dragging neanderthals that are generally cowards pressing on a gas pedal to go vroom.
I just ignore it anymore.
And Saline is too narrow now? WHAT? It looks perfectly fine. I live in Greenfield and most of the roads in Greenfield or Pittsburgh in general are very tight. Saline still is a luxury wide street compared to majority of the city. The local yokels are finding a reason to rile up against change and cyclist.
It would have been nice if the reporter had talked with somebody from the Greenfield Community Association before relaying the comments about the community not being consulted.
I’m trying to find how to report that user on the CBS Pittsburgh site. I reported a couple of the idiots who were being threatening on Facebook last year, and they were blocked. I have not found the right place to complain yet, but I will.
If you hover over the right side of a comment, there is an option to flag it. CBS will then hide the comment as “Under Moderation” until they review it.
Let’s see if they kill it or leave it there
comments on reports are a waste of time, it’s the same trolls regardless of the story or topic, just trying to boil blood. It’s not like the nonsense is restricted to cycling stories.
Yes, that comment is shocking and terrible. But there’s also unethical reporting going on here, it seems to me. The report claims “that sentiment isn’t shared by most people who live in the neighborhood called the run.” That’s a assertion of fact, not opinion, about how “most people” there feel. But there’s no indication that the reporter either talked to literally every person in the neighborhood or in any other way took some semi-statistical sample of the people living there.
It seems like bad and unethical journalism to me to report something as fact that you either know is false or easily falsified and you just don’t even bother to check.
And to be honest, it would be so easy to make the statement true, by replacing “most people” with “at least a few of the people I talked to” (after, ahem, being prompted with leading questions), that’s it’s like – did the reporter and editor just not even care? That’s just sad.
KDKA reporter interviewing Ngani from Bike Pittsburgh live on the air last week, on the need for bike advocacy:
“and there’s a great need for that, I mean we covered a lot of stories in our news shows about people that have been hit by bicycles, and unfortunately some killed by bicycles, so you’re right, awareness is what it’s all about.”
Last summer, the P-G letters page was the scene of some savage attacks on cyclists, including threats of violence and descriptions (possibly fanciful) of deliberate attacks. Some of us posted replies, reported posters and generally wasted time on the whole thing.
Eventually the postings stopped. It was apparent that the P-G suspended the most egregious violators and maybe even started filtering letters for attacks on bikers. Some of the nastier posters still popped up occasionally, much subdued though still nasty.
There are some really sick people out there (particularly those vicious racists on the ACS and voter ID threads that I ended up reading while checking for the biker stuff). I keep hoping they’re a shrinking minority, and are in the process of dying off.
Anyway, the right thing to do is to complain to the outlet. I’d like to think that the editors will see to doing the right thing and stop giving these people a platform for their hate. Who are of course free to vent on their own forums…
Grab the details. Screenshots. Identify these people. If they do actually end up hurting someone, that makes the charge premeditated. (IANAL)
I have no desire to seek them out personally. But if they truly do not care, and cause harm, their history should at least be admissible evidence.
Do you folks like that bike lane? I biked through there yesterday to go to Oakland and didn’t like it. I tend to stay on the road until I get to the Hollow Trail. As I came to the end of the protected segment it sort of forced me to take the trail, which I never do. I didn’t want to go and quite frankly on the wrong side of the road. On my return trip I saw a couple cyclists in the “motorized” lane instead of the protected area. It just didn’t seem the best place to spend money as I never found that area unsafe. I would rather have had a bike lane put on Greenfield Ave up the hill or shift the double-yellow line over and paint sharrows.
This would be much more improved if they:
a) cut back the overgrowth over the existing trail between junction hollow and saline st.
b) addeds some asphault or concrete to smooth the transition from the trail to the bikeway instead of sending you in to a curb.
c) Widened the trail by the hand rail after the railroad bridge overpass (or paved over that area that seemed to be an extension of the trail that was flattened out just above the existing trail, you can see it well on street view, but is now grown in with weeds). https://firstname.lastname@example.org,-79.94962,3a,89.9y,178.88h,66.82t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1su79pnzXqgl9gihQJKDioBQ!2e0
d) paint a crossing indicator across boundry st to indicate the trail continues that way instead of boundry st.
e) Widen the trail where it joins the sidewalk behind big jims.
FYI. I just put in a 311 ticket for overgrowth on the trail between boundry st and saline st.
The commenter has apoint.
After all, no one here has ever seen a car exceed the speed limit or roll through a stop sign have they?
There used to be parking on both sides of the road. This is replaced with a bike lane that is not much wider than a single car. Therefore the roadway should actually be wider right?
I think it visually seems narrower to the drivers now because there are lane marking telling them where they should be; previously they more or less drove down the middle of the street – so yeah, the street was wider.
I was on it yesterday. My response: ehh
Like somebody else said, it dumps you halfway down Saline on the wrong side of the street if you’re going into Panther Hollow. I’m also wondering if the lack of parking will encourage faster driving since the sight lines are clearer
This isn’t really for us. This is for the interested but concerned.
Benzo’s suggestions are good and important to fit into the plan. Doing something about the chute is also important, but harder (obligatory, but please let’s discuss things http://bikepgh.org/mb/topic/encouraging-almono-to-think-big-on-active-transport/ and bug Almono http://almono.org/contact because they’re spending a billion dollars around here and talk big about the future: ).
Cycle-tracks are always on the wrong side of the street for where you’re coming from / going next half the time. Nature of the beast. But I think the bollards are probably way more expensive than paint, so it’s probably a much less expensive way to get protected facilities than protected lanes in both directions. It’s also probably less expensive to clean than protected lanes in both directions. And they’re extremely popular where cycling is extremely popular and thinking of my daughter biking I want more separated/protected facilities for her. So on balance, I think they’re probably a good thing.
I’d be very interested to know what best practices are for placement of crossings, signage, and paint based road markers are for these mixing areas. I’m sure it’s pretty well figured out in chapters of planning documents in the bike friendliest cities, at least in Europe, right?
Interesting note: the owner of the “little local bar” complaining in the Trib article about the new Saline St bike track lives…20 miles away, in Plum. that…doesn’t sound very local to me.
Dear Little Local Bar owner, in case it didn’t occur to you, cycling makes one vewy vewy thirsty. They drink, frequently, beer. It might behoove you to accommodate that instead of bitching, Mensa.
@ed, yeah, the more I think about it the more stupid this seems. Mr. Provenzale has a bar back in the neighborhood, where nobody would ever go except for folks from there. So the city puts a significant bike trail, brings bikers from all over the East End right past his bar, and his reaction is to complain. When two whole bars are supporting themselves exclusively on the business of cyclists.
Smart move would be to buy this dump (Zano’s), and turn it into a place cyclists would stop by on their way home from a ride.
I feel like I should add this information from TribLive’s interview (http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/6569410-74/bike-pittsburgh-bicycle#axzz3AUqhOQwx):
Business owners Pete and Dana Provenzano of Plum, who own Zano’s bar just off Saline Street in Greenfield, are not thrilled with the city’s piecemeal strategy.
New bike lanes along Saline narrowed the street and drove Second Avenue bus commuters who leave their cars all day deep into the neighborhood.
“I’ve got no problem with people who ride bikes — if they’re ever looking for an inviting spot off the trail and come in for a bite, we’ll take care of them — but the bike lanes took away what little parking we had,” said Provenzano. “Now the city wants to talk to us about it, but it’s too late.”
Planners could have addressed parking before crews installed the bike lanes, he said.
he claims it’s a ‘little local bar’, in a small neighbourhood–how many of his customers drive, anyway?
…this is a bar we’re talking about. should his customers even _be_ driving?
(perhaps if he didn’t have to drive twenty miles to get to work….naah.)
I don’t really get the lynch mob for this guy – he didn’t say anything anti-cyclist, just some complaining about parking… and given the tone of the article I’m sure the columnist was trying to frame it as negatively as possible.
I completely agree about the ridiculousness of driving to a bar, but that’s obviously a much larger issue. I mean, look at Mad Mex, they have a bike corral but they also subsidize DUI with their free valet service. Or, look at any bar in the suburbs.
Well, I’m annoyed with him because he’s complaining about not being informed, when if he ever paid attention to the Greenfield Community Association Facebook page or newsletter or Corey O’Connor’s site he would know all about it. And I guess the reason he’s not doing that is because he lives in Plum. So he’s claiming he’s some small neighborhood bar owner who the city is just running right over but really he’s just not in touch with what the neighborhood is trying to do.
Ah, I actually should have attached TLDR to my post, didn’t mean to lynch the guy. rgrasmus message explains much. Might be a cool little hole to enjoy a beverage. I love Pghs pocket neighborhoods.
It occurs to me in retrospect that a better way to improve the guy’s outlook might be to stop in and have a couple beers by bike instead of bitching myself!
I’m trying to be better, realz.
Is this by chance the newish (or refurbed) establishment that recently appeared across the street from the Vets memorial?
Maybe they could install some bike racks? I can get with the idea of helping the biker cause by drinking a beer (at a welcoming establishment, of course).
Earlier this week, coming up Saline from Greenfield. I saw a pickup truck coming my way. At the curve (round where the lane ends) he was in the bike lane (to be fair, only one of his wheels was in the outermost lane, inside the double-whites. Being courteous (I assume) he did move back into the street when he saw me coming.
Aside from fixing the curb, maybe we should also have a Jersey barrier sticking out at that point, just as a reminder.
Um, are we talking about Big Jims in the run? If so, that’s not “some little bar.” It has a big following, serves food, and has been around for a while.
Big Jim’s is on Alexis. This place is on Acorn.
You can see one from the other, across the little park.
Acorn is probably struggling, and not because of the parking.
They really should install a bike rack, maybe get an espresso machine while they’re at it. You know, be enterprising.
Still says Chaser’s on Google Maps.
That little snip of grass next to the building would handle 20 bicycles easily, if there was a solid thing to hook them to. There, solved the parking problem.
I picked this up on this morning’s yoga ride, just so we can all agree on what it is we’re actually talking about.
Observe the parking situation. (Ok, it’s Sunday morning.)
I think this discussion about Zano’s really brings up a good example for a counter-argument regarding the “cyclists don’t pay taxes” argument… which is, motorists don’t pay for parking. It’s an assumed right but really a privilege… the lack of dedicated parking for the establishment should have been considered before making an investment in a business. It’s not up to tax-payers to subsidize parking at Zano’s and the owner’s complaint fails to realize this point, fails to take responsibility for his own business decision. To lose on-street parking and then complain about it is to complain that Uncle Sam is no longer giving a handout.
If his complaint is lack of information/warning, then that’s a different discussion entirely that has nothing to do with bikes.
I really like the idea of dropping by there on the way back from some group ride, getting beers, and talking with the guy. Maybe get him to put in some bike racks.
In this case the parking was probably more useful than the bike lane.
It seems that someone looked an an encompassing plan for bike infrastructure and decided to do the absolute easiest possible thing – which happens to be almost useless.
I’ve thought to myself lots of times in that area:
* Ugh – Cattle Chute
* RR tracks in the way
* skinny trail
* smells like an open sewer down here
* gravel needs to be swept up under the bridge
* why is there a 4 way stop here
Never have I thought:
* F’n traffic on saline street!
We’re not the target market for these things. The protected bike lanes are there to get other people riding. Lots of folks feel unsafe riding in traffic, at least at first. A protected bike lane might be enough to get more folks on bikes.
When the average Joe Newrider feels comfortable biking from the corner of Irvine/Second and Flowers, to a job in SSide Works, we will have solved the problem with that corner, and not a second sooner. And it has precious little to do with bike lanes on Saline St, or parking for a tavern. But that target market coming down out of Oakland will be dealing with 85% of the same issues, namely the corner itself, the chute and/or the right lane of Second, and the turn onto Swinburne.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Click here to login.