|
RE: [Fwd: Re: Fw: AB1581 Bicycle language for CA MUTCD]
|
Jim Baross
|
Jul 20, 2009 18:41 PDT
|
Bob:
Thanks for continuing to carry the load on this important issue for us!
I suggest that Dr. Benouar not get the "last word" on the issues. His
position with Sensys makes for an apparent economic conflict of interest for
providing accurate, unbiased information. I hope that you will find time to
also make your views and accurate information known as you have so often
done for us. Thanks again.
As I can unravel the issues in the exchanges that address implementation of
AB 1581 (traffic actuated signals to work for bicyclists), these following
seem to warrant addressing. (I think that Dr. Benouar's feelings about bikes
on freeways, etc. are not germane or worth commenting about in the context
of this effort for implementation of AB 1581.)
1. The CTCDC recommended approval of a set of standards and specifications.
These should be the considered by Caltrans for adoption. Delay has a
potential cost in convenience and safety that I hope no one else has to pay.
2. The Sensys systems do not apparently meet the specifications for
detection of the design bicycle when the bicycle is located in locations
anywhere in the specified area for detection. Changing the standards for
installation to make the Sensys system qualify is not appropriate, IMHO.
(And, we have found that some Caltrans districts apparently will not use the
BDL at all even when shown the need!)
3. Use of the Bicycle Detector Logo (BDL)/sweet spot indicator is useful for
existing detection installations that do not and cannot provide detection
that meets the new proposed standard specifications; a six foot square area
for detection. Use of the BDL is already an approved pavement marking for
this purpose. A BDL is very helpful for bicyclists at locations where the
detection zone is very small and/or hard to locate. Adoption of the 1581
recommended standards address new installations, not existing ones. Adoption
of the new standards will, appropriately, require that new and significantly
modified installations meet the new standards. An installation meeting the
new standards will not need a BDL, but I see no important reason not to
allow the use of a BDL on a new installation that otherwise meets the
standards. but only
If I have left out some issue, please let me/us know.
Jim Baross
CABO President
CC: CABO Directors
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Shanteau [mailto:RMSh-@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 10:39 AM
To: cabof-@topica.com; CBC
Subject: [CABO] [Fwd: Re: Fw: AB1581 Bicycle language for CA MUTCD]
Dr. Hamed Benouar of Sensys Networks
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/14/BAA617JUR0.DTL&
type=printable>
and formerly of Caltrans and CCIT at UC Berkeley
<http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/General/WhatsNew/CCITopens.html>
wants bicyclists to accept restrictions on their rights to use
expressways and large arterials "to improve safety and convenience for all".
He says this is his last comment on this issue, but he is still
spreading disinformation, such as saying that I agree that the reference
bicycle is detected 100% of the time over his company's magnetometer
based detector, which I did not say. He also puts a lot of emphasis on
Caltrans tests even though Caltrans refuses to test loop configurations
that are not already in their Standard Plans. Given that I have already
expressed my views, is there anything more that I should do about this
disinformation?
Bob Shanteau
Transportation Engineering Liaison
California Association of Bicycling Organizations
|
|
 |
|
