Go for ankle straps over vests. It's far more important for the reflective materials to be moving than the amount of body coverage you have.
GCN recently covered this topic with interviews of optometry and psychology professors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33GpfTWdk8U
The class system is designed for these arguments. I'm fine with class 2 in lanes and paths, but now we can discuss ebikes and where they belong without confusion. And regulators for parks, towns, etc can make it very clear in their signage.
Wow, that's not great. You have my condolences and I hope you manage to convince your city to put some money into a frontage road or path of some sort. I've seen some pretty nice rail trails and the like in very small communities, but they take a lot of work and time.
You're probably at the edge of the bus line. There's a usually very empty bus every 30 minutes just a block away from me. I took that bus a few times and realized that my neighborhood is the turn around for it. Most of the folk on it have gotten off by the time it loops through.
This situation of empty busses at houses makes sense too. Why would a bus be full at the edge of town? It needs passengers first and they won't accumulate until the bus is near populated spots like downtown. And why would a city pay for empty busses when they could route them in better areas?
There's evidence they are being used as an alternative to more polluting modes: https://theconversation.com/the-worlds-280-million-electric-bikes-and-mopeds-are-cutting-demand-for-oil-far-more-than-electric-cars-213870
One thing most often missed with bike-curious people, like yourself, miss is that the roads taken by bike are usually not the ones you'd drive.
A car route is often a poor choice when riding a bike. Avoiding fast moving cars means avoiding those dangerous areas. Pedestrians die because they don't have an alternative (parked across the road, or it's near home, school, etc).
For example, I'm at a friend's place and I rode my bike here. The path I take is through slower neighborhoods and dedicated trails. If I drove my car, I'd take a very different route.
My advice is to think of some regular trips you make; work, shopping, or otherwise. Then use Google or Strava or other mapping software to see what their suggested bike routes are. You may be surprised at what's available. I know I was when I started biking more regularly.
Also there are health benefits. If you're not exercising every day, then commuting for 5 days by bike absolutely will improve your health. I've lost a ton of weight. Take a look at how deadly heart disease is for folks without regular "walking 20 minutes a day" exercise is.
I too live in a state that's eliminating stagnating regulation, which in turn is causing my town and neighboring towns to catch up with extreme housing demands. I imagine we both will experience an awkward phase as some lots get updated buildings next to lots that haven't seen construction in 60+ years.
I view my recent experience as long needed development. There's no way a developer would plunge that much money into a building if they didn't believe they could sell the apartments/condos. I'd watch to see how fast they sell out, if they haven't already. Consider investing in nearby development if the complex sells quick. Maybe also consider moving further down the train line if you're looking for a less dense neighborhood.
Totally! And SF is a place that's been deploying more bicycle infrastructure and instructing their police to not enforce rolling stops, since at least from 2015! Our car brained governor is stopping such progress, so the battle continues. At least SF residents are holding their ground and voting to keep places like the great highway and JFK drive car-free.
To be fair, the article is trash. There's details in other publications, like Reuters:
"Waymo said its vehicle was at a complete stop at a four-way intersection when a large truck crossed the intersection in its direction. At its turn to proceed, the Waymo car moved forward.
However, the cyclist, who was obscured by the truck which the cyclist was following, took a left turn into the Waymo vehicle's path. When the cyclist was fully visible, the Waymo's vehicle braked heavily, but wasn't able to avoid the collision, the company said."
Drafting through an intersection is not very safe (I really should stop doing it myself) because of this exact visibility problem. Heck, it seems our cyclist friend cut left because they couldn't see the waymo car either.
Watch out when crossing busy intersections, folk! Cars are bulky and opaque. Yield when encountering busy intersections.
In this incident there was a passenger in the car. They were not injured.
The rolling taxis problem is still a thing though. I know there's lots for these self-driving cars to hang out in, but even that means a return trip back to base is without passengers.
That's a fair position to take, and thank you for debating. Have an upvote!
I don't think park-and-ride should be made artificially cheap or free because that causes demand to drive to the town edges. Regional transit is needed and is already competing with subsidized highways. We don't need more subsidies that induce even more regional car demand!
Besides, even with charging for the lost costs, park-and-ride is going to be cheaper over inner-city parking. Let me clarify my point of the cost of a garage: the cost of building a garage includes materials, maintenance, enforcement, and land value. City edge land is cheap to the point that park-and-ride probably won't be built as a garage but as a lot. Engineered buildings are expensive and usually only make sense when the land value is very high. I suspect it's only a million or two to build a paved, ~200 spot park-and-ride, which would place daily spot pricing on the order of $1.50 to $2.50 a day. That's pretty cheap compared to privately owned garaged parking in major cities (> $25 a day).
My pricing beef orbits around how often city garages are heavily subsidized. I'll make a real-life example from a nearby city of 64,000 people. They built a garage adjacent to their downtown for $12 million. Amortizing that over 15 years and the number of spaces puts the minimum revenue per spot at $8.98 per day. What is the city's going rate for parking? $40 per month for a permit and $1.25 an hour with 9 hours of enforcement. Only the hourly rate at 100% occupancy, which this lot is not generating, meets just the construction costs, let alone figuring out discount rate and property taxes.
And speaking of taxes, I expect publicly built parking lots and garages to also pay for their taxable rate, even if it's just an accounting trick by the city to price their lots. Running local property taxes as a land value tax would go a long way towards properly pricing the value of public garages. LVT would also discourage parking in the city center, where land is expensive, in favor of parking on the city edge, where land is cheap. Just another trick which drives down park-and-ride pricing and discourages city-center parking.
I'm hopeful. This measure forces visibility of progress and allows any regular citizen to sue the city if they try to weasel out. I can't imagine a city politician taking a position of "we're going to fight this ridiculous lawsuit about not installing a wider sidewalk for as long as it takes." That's a real bad look, especially given this measure passed 65% for, 35% against. It would be political suicide.