From messengers-owner Fri Oct 20 20:46:56 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id UAA20831 for messengers-outgoing; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 20:46:56 -0700 Received: from bonk.io.org (root@bonk.io.org [198.133.36.3]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id UAA20826 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 20:46:53 -0700 Received: from else (root@else.net [204.92.4.245]) by bonk.io.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA26862 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 23:46:49 -0400 Received: by tor250.org (0.99.950801) id AA07634; 19 Oct 95 22:45:25 -0500 From: william@gryn.org (William Henderson) Date: 19 Oct 95 15:07:05 -0400 Subject: Laura from Toronto Message-ID: <4aa_9510192245@tor250.org> Organization: Gateway: To: messengers@cycling.org X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk Bonjour All! I was talking to Laura yesterday. She seemed to be on a real upper after a recent trip to San Francisco for some reason or another. Anyway, she says HI to everybody. // `A Bient^ot, Bill -- |Fidonet: William Henderson 1:259/404 |Internet: william@gryn.org From messengers-owner Mon Oct 23 21:42:21 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id VAA12539 for messengers-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 21:42:21 -0700 Received: from fcom.cc.utah.edu (root@fcom.cc.utah.edu [128.110.48.11]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id VAA12508; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 21:41:53 -0700 Received: from eli.cvrti.utah.edu (eli.cvrti.utah.edu [128.110.100.4]) by fcom.cc.utah.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA03020; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 22:41:52 -0600 Received: by eli.cvrti.utah.edu (931110.SGI/930416.SGI.AUTO) for @fcom.cc.utah.edu:bikepeople@cycling.org id AA01488; Mon, 23 Oct 95 22:41:50 -0600 Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 22:41:50 -0600 From: macleod@eli.cvrti.utah.edu (Rob MacLeod) Message-Id: <9510240441.AA01488@eli.cvrti.utah.edu> To: bikepeople@cycling.org, commute-logistics@cycling.org, messengers@cycling.org Subject: bike licensing X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk Folks, Our City alternative transportation coordinator asked me to get some feedback from you as to whether you know of any programs to license bicycles, as in both vehicle registration and operating license, that exist anywhere. I have never heard of such a thing, at least the operator licensing part, and cannot really see what purpose it would serve, except to give police a better handle on cyclists they stop. Thanks, -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rob MacLeod, Ph.D. Nora Eccles Harrison Cardiovascular Research and Training Institute (CVRTI) Building 500, University of Utah Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 ____ __o Internet: macleod@cvrti.utah.edu ____ -\<, Phonemail: (801)581-8183 ....0/ 0 Fax: (801)581-3128 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From messengers-owner Mon Oct 23 22:50:25 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id WAA13325 for messengers-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 22:50:25 -0700 Received: from alaska.net (calvino.alaska.net [204.17.139.1]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with SMTP id WAA13294; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 22:49:57 -0700 Received: from jdc-p1-31.alaska.net (jdc-p1-56.alaska.net) by alaska.net (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA20052; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 21:48:49 -0800 Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 21:48:48 -0800 Message-Id: <9510240548.AA20052@alaska.net> X-Sender: andersen@alaska.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.1.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: macleod@eli.cvrti.utah.edu (Rob MacLeod), bikepeople@cycling.org, commute-logistics@cycling.org, messengers@cycling.org From: "John S. Andersen" Subject: Re: bike licensing X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk At 10:41 PM 10/23/95 -0600, Rob MacLeod wrote: > >Folks, > >Our City alternative transportation coordinator asked me to get some >feedback from you as to whether you know of any programs to license >bicycles, as in both vehicle registration and operating license, that exist >anywhere. I have never heard of such a thing, at least the operator >licensing part, and cannot really see what purpose it would serve, except >to give police a better handle on cyclists they stop. Other purposes served: - Raise tax money dedicated to bike paths etc, (but in reality just barely enough to pay the salary of the new department involved.) - Help recover stolen bikes (but in reality just another way to ding the victim when reporting an unlicensed bike being stolen, and another thing for the criminal to scrape off the frame) - Help bicycle safety by licensing operators, (but in reality just a way to set some crony up in business selling bike safety classes) - Keep kid off busy streets. (But in reality this wont work anyway). - Did i mention new source of taxes...? I may sound cynical, I am. Seen this before (Duluth Mn in the 60's). Tax Grab. They are talking about it here in Juneau Ak. Tax Grab. If this idea is springing up in more than two places at once you can bet some city planners have been to a conference lately. (Junket). __________________ John Andersen Juneau, Alaska From messengers-owner Mon Oct 23 23:33:03 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id XAA13597 for messengers-outgoing; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 23:33:03 -0700 Received: from orion.sfsu.edu (cypher@orion.sfsu.edu [130.212.10.236]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id XAA13579; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 23:32:54 -0700 Received: (from cypher@localhost) by orion.sfsu.edu (8.7.1/8.7.1) id XAA02787; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 23:32:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 23:32:48 -0700 (PDT) From: daniel seiberling X-Sender: cypher@orion To: Rob MacLeod cc: bikepeople@cycling.org, commute-logistics@cycling.org, messengers@cycling.org Subject: Re: bike licensing In-Reply-To: <9510240441.AA01488@eli.cvrti.utah.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk yeah Rob, there's some kinda licensing law in san'frisco for messengers...The kops use it as a means for "cracking down" on us. Last time it happened was the day after a messenger evaded a bike cop. They swarmed on us and handed out citations for not having license plates on our bikes. Some of us got out of it by fashioning pseudo-plates out of kardboard... The irony of this whole thing is that you can't even register your bike here. ; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 00:24:13 -0700 Received: from [205.134.227.85] (ppp085-sf1.sirius.com [205.134.227.85]) by sputnik.sirius.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id AAA03711 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 00:24:29 -0700 X-Sender: magpie@pop.sirius.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 00:22:51 -0800 To: messengers@cycling.org From: magpie@SIRIUS.COM (joel metz) Subject: new kid (thats me) X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk just found this list after poking around looking for messenger links now that im up and running on the web again... ive not been messengering long, almost a year now, working first for aero (ewwwww) and now for pelican (yaaaaay) here in sf... uh, i love it. had the head mechanic (ex-messenger from somewhere or other) in the shop i was working in 6-7 years ago tell me once that if i ever moved to a city, this is what i should do, and, well, he was right. anyhow, im currently undergoing bike withdrawal as i continue my extended-for-far-too-long healing process from getting hit several months back, but i *am* slowly but surely working on messenger web pages at http://www.sirius.com/~magpie - theyre just *barely* started right now, but as soon as i find a scanner and some people to give me nifty pictures or text to put up besides my own ramblings, itll be there... cheers, -joel joel metz magpie@{sirius, echo}.com -=oOo=- -=oOo=- -=oOo=- -=oOo=- -=oOo=--=oOo=- -=oOo=- -=oOo=- -=oOo=- -=oOo=- "all good people lost in love should never lose their souls..." - sdc -=oOo=- "they all call me crazee... ...but im free!" -=oOo=- v perkygoff world headquarters, sf, ca v From messengers-owner Tue Oct 24 07:51:36 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id HAA20977 for messengers-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 07:51:36 -0700 Received: from dune.artic.edu (dune.artic.edu [198.40.25.4]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id HAA20972 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 07:51:34 -0700 Received: from [198.40.25.103] (sap3.artic.edu [198.40.25.103]) by dune.artic.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA11050 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 09:55:08 -0500 Message-Id: <199510241455.JAA11050@dune.artic.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 10:01:20 -0600 To: messengers@cycling.org From: fpiche@artic.edu (frank pichel) Subject: messenger licensing X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk Chicago has a licensing system for messengers, which requires messengers to wear a number plate on their person. I have been 'pulled over' twice while commuting by Chicago's finest who think I am a messenger w/o my number on. As expected, the officers comported themselves in a most unprofessional manner once they realized their error. From messengers-owner Tue Oct 24 20:16:37 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id UAA07236 for messengers-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 20:16:37 -0700 Received: from buzzard.csrv.uidaho.edu (peckh771@buzzard.csrv.uidaho.edu [129.101.119.227]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id UAA07218; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 20:15:21 -0700 Received: (from peckh771@localhost) by buzzard.csrv.uidaho.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) id UAA03380; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 20:14:18 -0700 Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 20:14:18 -0700 (PDT) From: David Peckham To: Rob MacLeod cc: bikepeople@cycling.org, commute-logistics@cycling.org, messengers@cycling.org Subject: Re: bike licensing In-Reply-To: <9510240441.AA01488@eli.cvrti.utah.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk so what is the point, is it to raise more money for cycling education/facilities, or is it to crack down on errant cyclists? Existing laws should be adequate to enforce infractions, if we could ever find a law enforcement agency willing to do the work. I'm not optimistic, they dont seem interested in enforcing speeding laws or red light violations, or as i noticed recently in California, expired registration. If the effort is for more funding , some members of the Idaho legaislature came up with a great idea, in Colorado the sales tax on autos and auto parts is earmarked solely for highways funding, why not do the same for bicycle sales? Sorry, i reread that I'm a little off your question. The problem with licensing bikes is that to make it cost effective for administrative purposes it becomes so costly as to be widely ignored, then youre back to the enforcement problem. While formal training is certainly desirble for bicycle drivers, licensing requirements create more enforcement problems, as well as the deterrent to cycling. There must be a better way, especially in these 90's when the trend is clearly for less regulation. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% David Peckham peckh771@uidaho.edu 2335 Wallen Rd, Moscow, ID 83843 208-882-9698 On Mon, 23 Oct 1995, Rob MacLeod wrote: > > Folks, > > Our City alternative transportation coordinator asked me to get some > feedback from you as to whether you know of any programs to license > bicycles, as in both vehicle registration and operating license, that exist > anywhere. I have never heard of such a thing, at least the operator > licensing part, and cannot really see what purpose it would serve, except > to give police a better handle on cyclists they stop. > > Thanks, > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Rob MacLeod, Ph.D. > Nora Eccles Harrison Cardiovascular Research and Training Institute (CVRTI) > Building 500, University of Utah > Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 ____ __o > Internet: macleod@cvrti.utah.edu ____ -\<, > Phonemail: (801)581-8183 ....0/ 0 > Fax: (801)581-3128 > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > From messengers-owner Tue Oct 24 21:43:27 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id VAA08546 for messengers-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 21:43:27 -0700 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.12]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id VAA08529; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 21:43:12 -0700 From: Wachtel@aol.com Received: by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA26960; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 00:42:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 00:42:35 -0400 Message-ID: <951025004232_53653195@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: macleod@eli.cvrti.utah.edu, bikepeople@cycling.org, commute-logistics@cycling.org, messengers@cycling.org Subject: Re: bike licensing X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk Bicycle registration: Commonplace. Many arguments against and a few for. I don't want to stir it up again. Operator licensing: Never been tried anywhere that I know of. I'd love to see it, since it could ensure a minimum level of competence among bicyclists (as, like it or not, it does among motorists). Would probably have to be uniform across a state to make sense. Considering the cost and bureaucracy needed, public ignorance of the benefits, and--probably--an outcry from bicyclists who will say they don't want their freedom restricted, I doubt it will ever happen. Alan Wachtel Palo Alto, California Wachtel@aol.com From messengers-owner Wed Oct 25 07:14:28 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id HAA16049 for messengers-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 07:14:28 -0700 Received: from linknet.kitsap.lib.wa.us (pgantz@linknet.kitsap.lib.wa.us [198.187.135.22]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id HAA16034; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 07:14:14 -0700 Received: (from pgantz@localhost) by linknet.kitsap.lib.wa.us (8.6.12/8.6.9) id HAA25618; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 07:13:42 -0700 Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 07:13:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Phil Gantz To: David Peckham cc: Rob MacLeod , bikepeople@cycling.org, commute-logistics@cycling.org, messengers@cycling.org Subject: Re: bike licensing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk As I see it, government must be MADE to be careful about the laws it chooses to write. It is the bad laws in this country (i.e.: the victimless ones) that make "criminals" out of John Q Public. It is also the enforcement of these bad laws that gets John Q Policeman shot in the line of duty! From messengers-owner Wed Oct 25 13:22:33 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id NAA24603 for messengers-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 13:22:33 -0700 Received: from dub-img-4.compuserve.com (dub-img-4.compuserve.com [198.4.9.4]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA24597 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 13:22:30 -0700 Received: by dub-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id QAA04362; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 16:21:55 -0400 Date: 25 Oct 95 16:20:15 EDT From: Daniel Stecher <100074.400@compuserve.com> To: World messengers Subject: Next CMWC '96/ New York or SF Message-ID: <951025202014_100074.400_EHK129-1@CompuServe.COM> X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk Dear Cycle Messengers & Companies, returned from Toronto, having received different letters from various countries we feel like making some statements from our side. TORONTO Again we had a wonderful party and come-together while the organization was terrible, frustrating a lot of racers and visitors and being a financial fiasco for the organizers. I heard Hans from De Gronne Bude saying: "The organization of Berlin '93 was good, London '94 was still fun, but Toronto '95 is a disaster and not much fun left. The Danish are not willing to visit another unprofessional event like this." I think that Hans with his statement speaks for most of the Europeans and the other Cycle messengers. In order to reflect the Toronto event and to speak about CMWC as well as about a global network of Cycle Messengers & Companies we had a meeting on Monday morning with messenger representatives from Europe and the USA: Lisa & Francis & Buffalo Bill (London), Paul (Vienna), Christoph & Uwe (Nurnberg), James (New York), Howard, Daniel & Casey (San Francisco), Holger (Dusseldorf), Oreol (Barcelona), Volker (Bremen), Achim & Daniel (Berlin) The members from SF repeated their application for the 4th CMWC '96. James and Achim told the participants of the meeting that New York applies for CMWC 1996 as well. Achim who organized the 1st CMC in Berlin 1993 mentioned that world championships are much more than a race from messengers for messengers, but a big piece of professional organization and logistics. Also Buffalo Bill, organizer of the 2nd CMWC London 1994, warned everybody from having unrealistic visions. Everybody on the meeting agreed that the next championships have to be professional. Therefore the meeting decided on several agreements, especially on the jobs the applying cities have to do before anything else. Until a certain deadline every applying city has to fix several conditions such as following: 1. Producing and presenting an event brochure which includes the concrete concept of the event and has to be the appropriate instrument to be shown to sponsors, authorities and the cycle messenger community. 2. The concept has also to be professional in order to fascinate all the messengers for the event after the 'downer effect' of Toronto. 3. The development of an interesting and city centered race-track. 4. Proposals to the authorities and police for getting permissions for the site, race track and festival program. 5. Exact budget of the event selected in costs and income. 6. Proof of the general co-operation with local authorities and police in your city. 7. SF and NYC accept the application of the other city and will cooperate in a harmonic competition until the community will decide about the host city after the deadline. Deadline is October 31, 1995. After this deadline every applying city is asked to present how these conditions have progressed. SAN FRANCISCO At the end of August I received an E-Mail from Markus and Daniel, which was enthusiastic and ambitious about planning CMWC '96 and told us what was going on and who had promised what. I have already started to write a reply-letter and wanted to add a paper of my thoughts concerning previous events, the project itself and how CMWC' should be realized in future. At this point I got the invitation letter from SF which after all is a complete irritation. We don't understand how Markus and the others can just forget about the agreements of the Toronto-meeting and before having done any of the 'work' invite the community for a championship. First possibility: Howard, Daniel and Casey who have been on the meeting in Toronto forgot to brief Markus about our agreements. Second, the three guys didn't really get what we agreed on, so there is basic misunderstanding and the necessity to clear the situation. Third, everybody knows about the conditions but SF doesn't take them serious enough. Please, Markus and friends, explain to the community of cycle messengers in which intention you sent out the invitation letter and why you ignored the agreements. FUTURE CMWC'S The important point for CMWC is not the choice of the host city but the basic understanding on which level a World Championship has to be organized. And I think keeping those rules is extremely helpful to avoid anymore disaster. CMWC's must be organized by a professional organizing committee or a professional company. The couriers shouldn't organize the CMWC themselves cause on the one hand the financial risk is far too big, and on the other hand they are highly absorbed by their daily jobs and therefore they have no capacities to organize a championship in a professional way. We don't want any organizer crew to crash their life cause they miss this realistic point of view. For the messenger community of the particular host city there are two big jobs left anyway. 1. Developing the races (and not only performancing a remake of the year before). With this task everybody is welcome to involve himself with her/his experiences and ideas. 2. To ensure that the spirit of the festival is maintained: cool accommodation, cold drinks, free food for competitors, loud concerts, no limits and everybody has to have fun. The organizing work and logistics will be done by others who also overtake the financial risk and in this way the community of the host city is not day-and-night-time busy with 'ground work' in order of having time and capacity to performance their culture and arts. Keep the sp....., Yours, Berlin, 25. October 1995 Achim Beier Daniel Stecher IFCMC International Federation Of Cycle Messengers and Companies From messengers-owner Wed Oct 25 14:53:34 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id OAA26756 for messengers-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 14:53:34 -0700 Received: from lion.state.or.us (lion.state.or.us [159.121.88.21]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with SMTP id OAA26729; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 14:53:20 -0700 X400-Received: by /c=US/admd=/prmd=or.gov/; converted ( IA5-Text); Relayed; 25 Oct 1995 14:49:00 -0700 X400-Received: by mta Salem-MTA1 in /c=US/admd=/prmd=or.gov/; converted ( IA5-Text); Relayed; 25 Oct 1995 14:49:00 -0700 X400-MTS-Identifier: [/c=US/admd=/prmd=or.gov/; 0705B308EB0CC00A-Salem-MTA1] Content-Identifier: 0705B308EB0CC00A Content-Return: Allowed X400-Content-Type: P2-1988 ( 22 ) Conversion: Allowed Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text Priority: normal Disclose-Recipients: Prohibited Alternate-Recipient: Allowed X400-Originator: Michael.M.MOULE@state.or.us X400-Recipients: non-disclosure; Message-Id: <"0705B308EB0CC00A*/c=us/admd= /prmd=or.gov/o=ODOT/ou=MSMail/s=MOULE/g=Michael/i=M/"@MHS> Date: 25 Oct 1995 14:49:00 -0700 From: "MOULE Michael M" To: "bikepeople@cycling.org" (Return requested), "commute-logistics@cycling.org" (Return requested), "(Rob MacLeod)" (Return requested), "messengers@cycling.org" (Return requested) Subject: RE: bike and operator licensing MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk I agree with many of the comments thus far on operator licensing. It just isn't feasible, and nearly impossible to enforce. Bike registration can be a good thing for a community. I wouldn't recommend making it mandatory. An incentive program can work however. My undergraduate University had a registration program that was intended to be a theft deterrent and a way to assist in recovering stolen bikes. The registration fee was something like $16 but it included a free U-lock. Basically, students were offered a $30 lock and a numbered sticker to put on their bikes for $16. I assume the school got the locks at cost and added a small fee for administrative costs. Any student (including myself) who didn't already have a good lock jumped at the opportunity and registered their bikes. I would assume that a city could implement a similar program with some sort of incentive. You might have complaints from local bike shops. But on the other hand, local bike shops could sponsor the program and assist in providing merchandise to use as incentives. Now that I think about it, an incentive program could be used for operator licensing or certification. Rather than required operator licenses, a class or testing program could be used to give out an _optional_ license or certificate. Incentives would be offered to encourage cyclists to participate. It would take a lot of work and coordination with local governments, shops, and cyclists, but if implemented correctly and consistently, I think it could work. Michael Moule From messengers-owner Wed Oct 25 16:39:37 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id QAA28966 for messengers-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 16:39:37 -0700 Received: from server.accel.net ([205.206.169.2]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA28961 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 16:39:35 -0700 Received: from Alex ([205.206.169.20]) by server.accel.net (post.office MTA v1.7.1.1 evaluation license) with SMTP id AAA270 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 19:41:09 -0400 Received: by Alex with Microsoft Mail id <01BAA311.655A53E0@Alex>; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 19:38:01 -0400 Message-ID: <01BAA311.655A53E0@Alex> From: Alex Ball To: "'Messengers list'" Subject: RE: operator licenses Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 18:38:04 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk >Now that I think about it, an incentive program could be used for = operator=20 >licensing or certification. Rather than required operator licenses, a = class=20 >or testing program could be used to give out an _optional_ license or=20 >certificate. Incentives would be offered to encourage cyclists to=20 >participate. It would take a lot of work and coordination with local=20 >governments, shops, and cyclists, but if implemented correctly and=20 >consistently, I think it could work. >Michael Moule I think Michael brought up an excellent point here. An incentive system = that could work very well would be one in which cyclists could register, = for a small fee, at a bike shop, and receive their incentive (say, a = lock, a light, something...) right then and there. The shops would then = simply submit the registrations to the city or province (hey! I'm = Canadian!). This solution increases traffic in the bike shops, always a good thing = for them. It might prove possible, given this fact, to keep the fees = artificially low. A loss leader of sorts, if you will. Hmm...my bike is registered with the police for theft, but we're talking = more like drivers' licenses for cyclists, aren't we? I don't know... = still seems a bit silly all around. Next somebody'll want to put = restrictions on who can ride when, like graduated automobile licenses, = and then we'll need insurance... yuk. Alex Ball From messengers-owner Wed Oct 25 17:20:21 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id RAA29490 for messengers-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 17:20:21 -0700 Received: from elwha.evergreen.edu (elwha.evergreen.edu [192.211.16.10]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with SMTP id RAA29470; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 17:20:06 -0700 Received: by elwha.evergreen.edu; (5.65/1.1.8.2/16Jan95-8.2MPM) id AA01700; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 17:20:43 -0700 Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 17:20:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Laurence Leveen To: Rob MacLeod Cc: bikepeople@cycling.org, commute-logistics@cycling.org, messengers@cycling.org Subject: Re: bike licensing In-Reply-To: <9510240441.AA01488@eli.cvrti.utah.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk I have heard that Washington State tried this a few years ago (before I got here), and it resulted in a resounding non-compliance, so it was withdrawn. Perhaps someone in the state licensing could give you more info. - LL On Mon, 23 Oct 1995, Rob MacLeod wrote: > > Folks, > > Our City alternative transportation coordinator asked me to get some > feedback from you as to whether you know of any programs to license > bicycles, as in both vehicle registration and operating license, that exist > anywhere. I have never heard of such a thing, at least the operator > licensing part, and cannot really see what purpose it would serve, except > to give police a better handle on cyclists they stop. > > Thanks, > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Rob MacLeod, Ph.D. > Nora Eccles Harrison Cardiovascular Research and Training Institute (CVRTI) > Building 500, University of Utah > Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 ____ __o > Internet: macleod@cvrti.utah.edu ____ -\<, > Phonemail: (801)581-8183 ....0/ 0 > Fax: (801)581-3128 > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > From messengers-owner Thu Oct 26 01:37:05 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id BAA06421 for messengers-outgoing; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 01:37:05 -0700 Received: from orion.sfsu.edu (cypher@orion.sfsu.edu [130.212.10.236]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id BAA06403; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 01:36:48 -0700 Received: (from cypher@localhost) by orion.sfsu.edu (8.7.1/8.7.1) id BAA18036; Thu, 26 Oct 1995 01:36:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 01:36:44 -0700 (PDT) From: daniel seiberling X-Sender: cypher@orion To: Wachtel@aol.com cc: macleod@eli.cvrti.utah.edu, bikepeople@cycling.org, commute-logistics@cycling.org, messengers@cycling.org Subject: Re: bike licensing In-Reply-To: <951025004232_53653195@emout04.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 25 Oct 1995 Wachtel@aol.com wrote: > Bicycle registration: Commonplace. Many arguments against and a few for. I > don't want to stir it up again. as far as I know registration is only an option in some states used by cyclists to identify stolen bikes. I wish I could register mine... > Operator licensing: Never been tried anywhere that I know of. I'd love to > see it, since it could ensure a minimum level of competence among bicyclists > (as, like it or not, it does among motorists). 10 - 9?!! As a veteran messenger, I gotta tell you that the ratio of boneheads to competent drivers is probably much greater than you think. California drivers seem to think "Oh! I didn't see you!" isn't obvious enough. Getting a liscense is simply a matter of cramming for a test. [It don't mean squat] The real test for a drivers liscense oughtta be a year of bike messengering... --->daniel seiberling :>http://mercury.sfsu.edu/~cypher/bicycle.html From messengers-owner Fri Oct 27 00:36:17 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id AAA29833 for messengers-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 00:36:17 -0700 Received: from sputnik.sirius.com (sputnik.sirius.com [140.174.229.20]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id AAA29828 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 00:36:15 -0700 Received: from [205.134.227.32] (ppp032-sf1.sirius.com [205.134.227.32]) by sputnik.sirius.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id AAA18652 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 00:36:29 -0700 X-Sender: magpie@pop.sirius.com (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 00:34:53 -0800 To: messengers@cycling.org From: magpie@SIRIUS.COM (joel metz) Subject: Re: Next CMWC '96/ New York or SF X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk just a couple comments, speaking for *myself*, and myself alone, not anyone else from sf, not the cmwc '96 sf organizing committee - just to make that clear... >I heard Hans from De Gronne Bude saying: "The organization of Berlin '93 >was >good, London '94 was still fun, but Toronto '95 is a disaster and not >much fun >left. The Danish are not willing to visit another unprofessional >event like >this." I think that Hans with his statement speaks for most of >the Europeans >and the other Cycle messengers. first off, i didnt go to toronto. didnt go to london or berlin either. ive only been messengering a year, at that. *but* i did go out of my way to ask everyone ive come in contact with who went what they thought of it, cause i wouldve liked to have gone, had i been able to afford it, and had i not been hit by a car in june. *everyone* i have talked to here in sf, and those ive talked to elsewhere, while stating unanimously (whatever :) ) that there *was* a serious organizational problem, *loved* their experience. ive even had people call it the best, and most realistic course yet. >The important point for CMWC is not the choice of the host city but the >basic >understanding on which level a World Championship has to be >organized. And I >think keeping those rules is extremely helpful to avoid >anymore disaster. >CMWC's must be organized by a professional organizing >committee or a >professional company. The couriers shouldn't organize the >CMWC themselves cause >on the one hand the financial risk is far too big, >and on the other hand they >are highly absorbed by their daily jobs and >therefore they have no capacities >to organize a championship in a >professional way. We don't want any organizer >crew to crash their life >cause they miss this realistic point of view. For the >messenger community >of the particular host city there are two big jobs left >anyway. i couldnt disagree more on this. granted, i may have little idea of what it takes to organize such an event compared to those of you in berlin, london and toronto who have actually done that, but i hardly think it neccessary for messengers to go for outside help of a "professional" nature. i really think this is something we are well-equipped to handle ourselves. weve got more contacts than we realize, and more time to talk with them than we realize. i dont think were any more absorbed with our daily jobs than anyone else who organizes an amateur event of such a nature on the side of their regular job. i think it completely feasible for messengers to take on every aspect of the setup and organization themselves. so we work a roughly 9 to 5 hour day, maybe even more. *lots* of people do. and we may come home tired from a day of riding, but we come home invigorated from that same day of riding. and above all else, tell me *who* is going to be more gung-ho about this event than the messengers themselves? who knows whats needed better than us? who knows what sort of event to have better? is this not the territory we walk daily? we *are* servants of stress - who better to deal with a little of our own? i think calling in the "pros" to do the dirty work for us is actually a *mistake*. what do they know of our desires, our work, our needs? what can they do that we cant, in our devotion to getting this done? will they understand what were striving for, the goals of a cmwc, beyond what they see on paper? i, for one, dont want a suit doing my dirty work on *my* championships. id much rather get in there and muck around and find the time and energy to do it right myself. i see cmwc organizing as something that should be done my messengers and messenger companies (primarily the former) themselves, as a grassroots effort. i personally dont like being told that because i work my butt off all day at a job i love and am completely devoted to, i am not capable of organizing an event in a "professional" manner. in fact, because of what i put into my job, and no less what i get out of it, i am all the more devoted to doing this *right*, and, yes, *professionally*. i think you underestimate our capacity for organization, not to mention our enthusiasm for the task at hand. i know from weekly experience that those of us set to the task of attempting to get this to sf in '96 that our enthusiasm knows no bounds, and the information, contacts, plans and etc weve managed to pull together within the constraints of our spare time. i also think that the financial risk is simply something thats gonna be there regardless. may as well face the reality of it. anyone organizing an event of this scale (which isnt all *that* big, considering the size of many amateur road races) is going to have that risk. the main thing to keep in touch with is the need not to dream up huge schemes that are *too* risky to be practical or even realistic. it needs to be kept simple. just food for thought. -joel (pelican delivery, sf) joel metz magpie@{sirius, echo}.com -=oOo=- -=oOo=- -=oOo=- -=oOo=- -=oOo=--=oOo=- -=oOo=- -=oOo=- -=oOo=- -=oOo=- "all good people lost in love should never lose their souls..." - sdc -=oOo=- "they all call me crazee... ...but im free!" -=oOo=- v perkygoff world headquarters, sf, ca v From messengers-owner Fri Oct 27 23:20:15 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id XAA27423 for messengers-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 23:20:15 -0700 Received: from emout05.mail.aol.com (emout05.mail.aol.com [198.81.10.37]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id XAA27389; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 23:19:49 -0700 From: JBaross@aol.com Received: by emout05.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06936; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 02:19:18 -0400 Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 02:19:18 -0400 Message-ID: <951028021917_56605423@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: cypher@sfsu.edu, Wachtel@aol.com cc: macleod@eli.cvrti.utah.edu, bikepeople@cycling.org, commute-logistics@cycling.org, messengers@cycling.org Subject: Re: bike licensing X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk In a message dated 95-10-26 06:54:08 EDT, cypher@sfsu.edu (daniel seiberling) writes: >The real test for a drivers liscense oughtta be a >year of bike messengering... Yes! Learner's Permits should only allow bicycling for the first year! Only after experience as the underpowered, vulnerable bicyclist would people be allowed to pilot their *iron chariots*. My knowledge and awareness of traffic increased tremendously after many miles of bicycling _with_ traffic. Jim Baross From messengers-owner Fri Oct 27 23:38:21 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id XAA27623 for messengers-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 23:38:21 -0700 Received: from sputnik.sirius.com (sputnik.sirius.com [140.174.229.20]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id XAA27617 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 23:38:19 -0700 Received: from [205.134.227.50] (ppp050-sf1.sirius.com [205.134.227.50]) by sputnik.sirius.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA01677 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 23:38:35 -0700 X-Sender: magpie@pop.sirius.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 23:36:59 -0800 To: messengers@cycling.org From: magpie@SIRIUS.COM (joel metz) Subject: any other messengers out there with web pages? X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk im looking for more links for my pages, specifically the one im working on for the san francisco bike messenger association... anyone out there have a web page thats messenger-related, even if its "merely" the page of a messenger? ive already got this lists archives linked, as well as the 95 worlds... thanks! -joel joel metz magpie@{sirius, echo}.com -=oOo=- -=oOo=- -=oOo=- -=oOo=- -=oOo=--=oOo=- -=oOo=- -=oOo=- -=oOo=- -=oOo=- "all good people lost in love should never lose their souls..." - sdc -=oOo=- "they all call me crazee... ...but im free!" -=oOo=- v perkygoff world headquarters, sf, ca v From messengers-owner Sat Oct 28 08:12:40 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id IAA03060 for messengers-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 08:12:40 -0700 Received: from linknet.kitsap.lib.wa.us (pgantz@linknet.kitsap.lib.wa.us [198.187.135.22]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id IAA03043; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 08:12:23 -0700 Received: (from pgantz@localhost) by linknet.kitsap.lib.wa.us (8.6.12/8.6.9) id IAA25746; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 08:11:52 -0700 Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 08:11:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Phil Gantz To: JBaross@aol.com cc: cypher@sfsu.edu, Wachtel@aol.com, macleod@eli.cvrti.utah.edu, bikepeople@cycling.org, commute-logistics@cycling.org, messengers@cycling.org Subject: Re: bike licensing In-Reply-To: <951028021917_56605423@emout05.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk I would much rather see the money, time and effort expended towards EDUCATION, as opposed to the creation of yet another bureaucracy. Something on several levels would be smart (i.e. elementary school [as that is when most folks first experience the freedom of bicycling], and middle school [where advanced concepts like commuting, dealing with heavy traffic and long distance/touring planning would be better understood/appreciated]. From messengers-owner Sat Oct 28 14:55:41 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id OAA06984 for messengers-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 14:55:41 -0700 Received: from fcom.cc.utah.edu (root@fcom.cc.utah.edu [128.110.48.11]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id OAA06897; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 14:52:01 -0700 Received: from eli.cvrti.utah.edu (eli.cvrti.utah.edu [128.110.100.4]) by fcom.cc.utah.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA18961; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 15:52:00 -0600 Received: by eli.cvrti.utah.edu (931110.SGI/930416.SGI.AUTO) for @fcom.cc.utah.edu:bikepeople@cycling.org id AA18965; Sat, 28 Oct 95 15:51:59 -0600 Date: Sat, 28 Oct 95 15:51:59 -0600 From: macleod@eli.cvrti.utah.edu (Rob MacLeod) Message-Id: <9510282151.AA18965@eli.cvrti.utah.edu> To: bikepeople@cycling.org, commute-logistics@cycling.org, messengers@cycling.org Subject: safe pullouts X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk We are about to begin another round of discussion with the city transportation and safety people as well as the police bike patrol on bike safety ordinances in the central business district of Salt Lake City. I want to tap into the great pool of expertise residing in the network (this means YOU!) and get some idea from folks on some specific situations. Sorry if this post is long, but I want to make sure I describe things properly. The specific situation is the act of leaving and entering the roadway by bicycle from the sidewalk in a downtown area. The background is that cyclists are forbidden in the central business district (CBD) of Salt Lake City from riding anywhere, at any time, on the sidewalks. The police are now enforcing this legistlation, which has been on the books since 1972, and we are engaged in a dialogue with them regarding the utility of the current rules, as well as the feasibility of any alternatives we can propose. "We" here means the Salt Lake City Mayor's Bicycle Advisory Committee", citizens not bureaucrats. The challenge is to devise a means for cyclists to move between roadway and sidewalk safely, without riding on the sidewalk. The police propose that cyclists enter the roadway between parked cars on foot, then mount their bikes and ride away; the same in reverse for leaving the roadway to walk to the final destination. Members of our committee consider this to be an unsafe practice, especially those connected with the bike messenger services. Again, this is the CBD and road traffic levels are high, sidewalk traffic levels moderate to low, and both sidewalks and roadways wide relative to most US cities. The questions I have referring to bicyclists entering/leaving the roadway are: 1) Is there accident report evidence to determine with what frequency this situation leads to dangerous accidents? 2) What is the safest way to perform this manoeuver? 3) Do sidewalk regulations exist in other comparable cities and how do others resolve these issues. Thanks for your feedback, Rob. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rob MacLeod, Ph.D. Nora Eccles Harrison Cardiovascular Research and Training Institute (CVRTI) Building 500, University of Utah Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 ____ __o Internet: macleod@cvrti.utah.edu ____ -\<, Phonemail: (801)581-8183 ....0/ 0 Fax: (801)581-3128 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From messengers-owner Sat Oct 28 18:06:25 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id SAA09141 for messengers-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 18:06:25 -0700 Received: from markov.math.unm.edu (markov.math.unm.edu [198.83.81.76]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id SAA09136; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 18:06:23 -0700 Received: (from javance@localhost) by markov.math.unm.edu (8.6.9/8.6.10) id TAA05485; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 19:06:23 -0600 Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 19:06:22 -0600 (MDT) From: John Vance To: messengers@cycling.org cc: bikepeople@cycling.org Subject: Re: safe pullouts In-Reply-To: <9510282151.AA18965@eli.cvrti.utah.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk I removed commute-logistics from this message's distribution. On Sat, 28 Oct 1995, Rob MacLeod wrote: > > The challenge is to devise a means for cyclists to move between roadway and > sidewalk safely, without riding on the sidewalk. The police propose that > cyclists enter the roadway between parked cars on foot, then mount their > bikes and ride away; the same in reverse for leaving the roadway to walk to > the final destination. Members of our committee consider this to be an > unsafe practice, especially those connected with the bike messenger > services. Again, this is the CBD and road traffic levels are high, > sidewalk traffic levels moderate to low, and both sidewalks and roadways > wide relative to most US cities. I don't see how this would be any less safe than entering or leaving a parking space by car. It should, in fact, be safer, because a cyclist would have a better view of traffic than a parallel-parked motorist. I'm afraid I don't understand your objection. > > The questions I have referring to bicyclists entering/leaving the roadway > are: > > 1) Is there accident report evidence to determine with what frequency this > situation leads to dangerous accidents? I don't think you'll find the data you want. However, failing to properly yield to traffic before entering the roadway does cause many accidents. > > 2) What is the safest way to perform this manoeuver? On entering the roadway, yield to traffic already on the road. On exiting the roadway, slow smoothly as you approach where you wish to turn out. > > 3) Do sidewalk regulations exist in other comparable cities and how do > others resolve these issues. It is illegal to ride on the sidewalk anywhere in the UK, unless that sidewalk is a designated cycleway (which is rare.) Cyclists there place their cycles on the roadway, wait for traffic to sufficiently clear, then proceed. This method seems to work well whether you're piloting a bicycle, motorbike, car, or tractor-trailer. It's also illegal to ride on the sidewalk in business districts in Albuquerque, but that regulation is ignored by both cyclists and the police. One result of this, I believe, is an unacceptably high number of cyclists who are struck by turning vehicles while riding in a crosswalk, and by vehicles entering and exiting parking-lot driveways while cycling on the sidewalk. John Vance From messengers-owner Sat Oct 28 22:03:04 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id WAA11305 for messengers-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 22:03:04 -0700 Received: from server.accel.net ([205.206.169.2]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id WAA11298 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 22:03:02 -0700 Received: from Alex ([205.206.169.34]) by server.accel.net (post.office MTA v1.7.1.1 evaluation license) with SMTP id AAA350 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 01:04:37 -0400 Received: by Alex with Microsoft Mail id <01BAA59A.14864380@Alex>; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 01:01:29 -0400 Message-ID: <01BAA59A.14864380@Alex> From: Alex Ball To: "'Messengers list'" Subject: Job openings anywhere Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 00:55:13 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk I'm not currently a courier, but am looking to become one, at least for = a term or few, to make some money to pay for university. Right now, I live in Ontario, but pretty much anywhere in the US or = Canada is a possibility with dual citizenship and a little = resourcefulness... Anybody have any suggestions? Companies to look into? Companies to stay away from? Other jobs to try instead? :-) Thanks! Alex From messengers-owner Sun Oct 29 03:31:43 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id DAA15122 for messengers-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 03:31:43 -0800 Received: from ararat.cse.ucsc.edu (ararat.cse.ucsc.edu [128.114.134.65]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id DAA15106; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 03:31:19 -0800 Received: (from karplus@localhost) by ararat.cse.ucsc.edu (8.6.10/8.6.10) id DAA00269; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 03:31:14 -0800 Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 03:31:14 -0800 From: Kevin Karplus Message-Id: <199510291131.DAA00269@ararat.cse.ucsc.edu> To: macleod@eli.cvrti.utah.edu CC: bikepeople@cycling.org, commute-logistics@cycling.org, messengers@cycling.org In-reply-to: <9510282151.AA18965@eli.cvrti.utah.edu> (macleod@eli.cvrti.utah.edu) Subject: Re: safe pullouts X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk There is some evidence in the Cross study (well described in Forester's Effective Cycling book) that mid-block intersections are particularly hazardous for children, both from children entering traffic midblock and from motorists entering or leaving traffic mid-block. I believe this was an accident type that got farily rare for adult cyclists. The safest way to enter traffic varies with the speed of traffic, visibility, whether or not there is a driveway, whether there is on-street parking (and whether it is parallel or diagonal), and how wide the outside lane is. If there is no curb cut for a driveway, on-street parking, poor sight lines, and adequate width, then the police recommendation of walking the bike to the road and mounting there is probably the best advice. If you have a curb cut and clear sight lines, you may be better off waiting just off the road until traffic clears. In Santa Cruz, where bike riding on the sidewalk in the business district has been prohibited for over 100 years, I generally walk the bike to the nearest curb cut (usually less than half a block, since the downtown infrastructure was rebuilt to meet or exceed ADA standards), and mount the bike just before entering the road. Speaking as a frequent pedestrian, prohibiting bike riding on the sidewalks in business districts makes good sense. Speaking as an Effective Cycling Instructor, it makes even better sense, since sidewalk riding is actually far more dangerous than riding on the road (see Wachtel and Lewiston, "Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections" Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, Sept 1994, p. 30). From messengers-owner Sun Oct 29 04:37:13 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id EAA15593 for messengers-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 04:37:13 -0800 Received: from freenet.npiec.on.ca (freenet.npiec.on.ca [205.211.3.2]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with SMTP id EAA15575; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 04:37:03 -0800 Received: by freenet.npiec.on.ca (931110.SGI/930416.SGI.AUTO) for bikepeople@cycling.org id AA08053; Sun, 29 Oct 95 07:33:11 -0500 Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 07:33:08 -0500 (EST) From: Lorraine Young Subject: Re: safe pullouts To: Kevin Karplus Cc: macleod@eli.cvrti.utah.edu, bikepeople@cycling.org, commute-logistics@cycling.org, messengers@cycling.org In-Reply-To: <199510291131.DAA00269@ararat.cse.ucsc.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 29 Oct 1995, Kevin Karplus wrote: > > > The safest way to enter traffic varies with the speed of traffic, > visibility, whether or not there is a driveway, whether there is > on-street parking (and whether it is parallel or diagonal), and how > wide the outside lane is. > > If there is no curb cut for a driveway, on-street parking, poor sight > lines, and adequate width, then the police recommendation of walking > the bike to the road and mounting there is probably the best advice. > If you have a curb cut and clear sight lines, you may be better off > waiting just off the road until traffic clears. > If I understood Rob's original post correctly, they are NOT allowed ANY sidewalk riding. Would this not eliminate the use of a driveway as a means of roadway access since you must ride over the sidewalk to get to the road. In general, I agree that riding on the sidewalk is a bad idea. It is there for pedestrians. I confess to sidewalk riding but only the 44 ft in front of my house when using my neighbour's driveway to beat traffic. Lorraine Young lyoung@freenet.npiec.on.ca Welland Ontario Canada From messengers-owner Sun Oct 29 13:16:30 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id NAA20059 for messengers-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 13:16:30 -0800 Received: from mail06.mail.aol.com (mail06.mail.aol.com [152.163.172.108]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA20043; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 13:16:13 -0800 From: Wachtel@aol.com Received: by mail06.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA24948; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 16:15:41 -0500 Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 16:15:41 -0500 Message-ID: <951029161541_78802176@mail06.mail.aol.com> To: macleod@eli.cvrti.utah.edu, bikepeople@cycling.org, commute-logistics@cycling.org, messengers@cycling.org Subject: Re: safe pullouts X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk If I understand the situation, bicyclists park on the sidewalk, or walk their bikes on the sidewalk, and need to get between there and the roadway. This seems analogous to cars entering or leaving off-street parking at a driveway. Just as cars can drive across the sidewalk to do this, bicyclists ought to be able to cycle. Walking out between parked cars, on the other hand, is a bad idea, and having a bicycle with you doesn't make it any better. Alan Wachtel Palo Alto, California Wachtel@aol.com From messengers-owner Sun Oct 29 18:47:33 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id SAA23672 for messengers-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 18:47:33 -0800 Received: from cais.cais.com (cais.com [199.0.216.4]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id SAA23667 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 18:47:31 -0800 Received: from [204.157.206.204] (digidyer.cais.com [204.157.206.204]) by cais.cais.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id VAA29586 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 21:47:27 -0500 Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 21:47:27 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: messengers@cycling.org From: digidyer@cais.cais.com (Richard Dyer) Subject: emailing list X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk Please take me off your email list, thank you vary much From messengers-owner Sun Oct 29 20:47:51 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id UAA24828 for messengers-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 20:47:51 -0800 Received: from fcom.cc.utah.edu (root@fcom.cc.utah.edu [128.110.48.11]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id UAA24823; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 20:47:49 -0800 Received: from eli.cvrti.utah.edu (eli.cvrti.utah.edu [128.110.100.4]) by fcom.cc.utah.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA21668; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 21:47:47 -0700 Received: by eli.cvrti.utah.edu (931110.SGI/930416.SGI.AUTO) for @fcom.cc.utah.edu:messengers@cycling.org id AA21614; Sun, 29 Oct 95 21:47:40 -0700 Date: Sun, 29 Oct 95 21:47:40 -0700 From: macleod@eli.cvrti.utah.edu (Rob MacLeod) Message-Id: <9510300447.AA21614@eli.cvrti.utah.edu> To: javance@math.unm.edu, karplus@cse.ucsc.edu, javance@math.unm.edu, lyoung@freenet.npiec.on.ca, Wachtel@aol.com Cc: messengers@cycling.org, bikepeople@cycling.org In-Reply-To: (message from John Vance on Sat, 28 Oct 1995 19:06:22 -0600 (MDT)) Subject: Re: safe pullouts X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk Thanks to all those who have replied. Here are a couple of responses: On Sat, 28 Oct 1995 19:06:22 -0600 (MDT) John Vance wrote: > On Sat, 28 Oct 1995, Rob MacLeod wrote: > > > > The challenge is to devise a means for cyclists to move between roadway and > > sidewalk safely, without riding on the sidewalk. The police propose that > > cyclists enter the roadway between parked cars on foot, then mount their > > bikes and ride away; the same in reverse for leaving the roadway to walk to > > the final destination. Members of our committee consider this to be an > > unsafe practice, especially those connected with the bike messenger > > services. Again, this is the CBD and road traffic levels are high, > > sidewalk traffic levels moderate to low, and both sidewalks and roadways > > wide relative to most US cities. > > I don't see how this would be any less safe than entering or leaving a > parking space by car. It should, in fact, be safer, because a cyclist would > have a better view of traffic than a parallel-parked motorist. I'm afraid > I don't understand your objection. The problem arise when there is no space in the road for a bike to line up parallel to the roadway, but must squeeze through the parked cars, get to the street, then turn the bike around, get on, and ride way. Unlike a parked car, which has its own safe space in which it sits aligned with the road, the cyclist in this scenario must get to (and from for that matter) the road with little space for set up. The most common move used now in most places I have seen is to leave the roadway at a convenient spot, at a driveway or curb cut and then ride the short distance to the eventual destination, with the reverse when departing. This is modified when the sidewalk is very full, with dismount happening earlier and perhaps walking the bike to the destination. But strict enforcement of the law means that one must be already dismounted the instant the bike tire hits the sidewalk. What we do not know yet (meeting is tomorrow) is whether and how we are allowed to use driveways and other easy access points to the road. On Sun, 29 Oct 1995 03:31:14 -0800 Kevin Karplus wrote: > If there is no curb cut for a driveway, on-street parking, poor sight > lines, and adequate width, then the police recommendation of walking the > bike to the road and mounting there is probably the best advice. But this can require you to drag the bike into the street and turn it around while in the traffic lane. > If you have a curb cut and clear sight lines, you may be better off > waiting just off the road until traffic clears. This is what I would suggest too, but we would have to wait on the street, not on the sidewalk, for traffic to clear. Or wait on the sidewalk standing beside the bike and then get quickly into the street, on the bike, and away between bursts of traffic. On Sun, 29 Oct 1995 07:33:08 -0500 (EST) Lorraine Young wrote: > In general, I agree that riding on the sidewalk is a bad idea. It is > there for pedestrians. I confess to sidewalk riding but only the 44 ft > in front of my house when using my neighbour's driveway to beat traffic. We agree in general and yet wonder if there is not some way to allow at least some access to the sidewalks, if only to get on and off the road safely. Your use of the sidewalk, I believe, is probably pretty typical and also allowed in most residential areas. Imagine you are a bike commuter with stops all over the city. It gets pretty tempting to ride that last 20 feet to the door of the building you are headed to, especially when there is not a pedestrian in sight. On Sun, 29 Oct 1995 16:15:41 -0500 Wachtel@aol.com wrote: > Walking out between parked cars, on the other hand, is a bad idea, and > having a bicycle with you doesn't make it any better. Our point exactly. Thanks for all the input!!! Rob. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rob MacLeod, Ph.D. Nora Eccles Harrison Cardiovascular Research and Training Institute (CVRTI) Building 500, University of Utah Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 ____ __o Internet: macleod@cvrti.utah.edu ____ -\<, Phonemail: (801)581-8183 ....0/ 0 Fax: (801)581-3128 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From messengers-owner Sun Oct 29 22:54:43 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id WAA26021 for messengers-outgoing; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 22:54:43 -0800 Received: from math.math.unm.edu (math.math.unm.edu [198.83.81.49]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id WAA26003; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 22:54:26 -0800 Received: (from javance@localhost) by math.math.unm.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22852; Sun, 29 Oct 1995 23:54:24 -0700 Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 23:54:24 -0700 (MST) From: John Vance To: Rob MacLeod cc: messengers@cycling.org, bikepeople@cycling.org Subject: Re: safe pullouts In-Reply-To: <9510300447.AA21614@eli.cvrti.utah.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 29 Oct 1995, Rob MacLeod wrote: > The most common move used now in most places I have seen is to leave the > roadway at a convenient spot, at a driveway or curb cut and then ride the > short distance to the eventual destination, with the reverse when > departing. This is modified when the sidewalk is very full, with dismount > happening earlier and perhaps walking the bike to the destination. But > strict enforcement of the law means that one must be already dismounted the > instant the bike tire hits the sidewalk. What we do not know yet (meeting > is tomorrow) is whether and how we are allowed to use driveways and other > easy access points to the road. It would be completely unreasonable to ban cycling on driveways, and in my lay opinion, a misinterpretation of the law banning cycling on sidewalks. After all, auto traffic is banned from sidewalks, but not from driveways, and in most locales cyclists have the same rights and duties as drivers of vehicles, which would seem to mean the right to use driveways. Heck, look at the name: *drive*ways. In my previous message, I was not objecting to the use of driveways. I did not realize that your city officials could be interpreting the ban in that manner. > Imagine you are a bike > commuter with stops all over the city. It gets pretty tempting to ride > that last 20 feet to the door of the building you are headed to, especially > when there is not a pedestrian in sight. One important question is what is the purpose of the sidewalk cycling ban in your municipality? My guess is that it is intended to protect pedestrians, and that it dates back to before the automobile era, when rapscallions on ordinaries terrorized wimmin and horses. Maybe you can present the case for cyclists crossing sidewalks to access cycle parking, just as motorists are allowed to cross sidewalks to access auto parking - at reasonable speeds, yielding to pedestrians. How can an action that is considered safe when performed in a motor vehicle suddenly become a public danger when performed astride a bicycle? However, cyclists who ride at road speed down the sidewalk should be stopped and ticketed, for their own safety. John Vance From messengers-owner Mon Oct 30 00:49:17 1995 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) id AAA26800 for messengers-outgoing; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 00:49:17 -0800 Received: from orion.sfsu.edu (cypher@orion.sfsu.edu [130.212.10.236]) by freewheel.Stanford.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id AAA26795 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 00:49:15 -0800 Received: (from cypher@localhost) by orion.sfsu.edu (8.7.1/8.7.1) id AAA03104; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 00:49:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 00:49:06 -0800 (PST) From: daniel seiberling X-Sender: cypher@orion To: Alex Ball cc: messengers@cycling.org Subject: Re: Job openings anywhere In-Reply-To: <01BAA59A.14864380@Alex> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 29 Oct 1995, Alex Ball wrote: > > Companies to stay away from? Let me just take a seccond to dis Aero courier. Of all sleazy, unscrupulous, chicken-shit messenger companies in sanfrancisco, they are by far the worst. Their rates are so low, that they have effectively forced the entire industry to underpay messengers. If you miss a day they'll chop your commission by 5%. They even have deliveries that are free of payment to the messenger. I'm not speaking from direct experience, however; I've never had the displeasure. ; Mon, 30 Oct 1995 12:04:47 -0800 Received: by homer30.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.10/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA79066; Mon, 30 Oct 95 12:04:39 -0800 X-Sender: mstamos@homer30.u.washington.edu Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 12:04:39 -0800 (PST) From: Molly Stamos To: Alex Ball Cc: "'Messengers list'" Subject: Re: Job openings anywhere In-Reply-To: <01BAA59A.14864380@Alex> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: owner-messengers@cycling.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 29 Oct 1995, Alex Ball wrote: > I'm not currently a courier, but am looking to become one, at least for a term or few, to make some money to pay for university. > Right now, I live in Ontario, but pretty much anywhere in the US or Canada is a possibility with dual citizenship and a little resourcefulness... > Anybody have any suggestions? > > Companies to look into? > > Companies to stay away from? > > Other jobs to try instead? :-) > > Thanks! > > Alex > Hey you can come to Seattle, it doesn't rain as much as people say and the hills in the downtown core will whip your ass into shape FAST! But stay away from Elliott Bay and Bucky's If you want I'll send you a copy of our zine here and you can see what the city is about Let me know and good luck\ Molly