banning bikes

[drydem]

banning bikes from shopping centers
------------------------------------------------------

In the 1960s I never remembered the local strip mall from
banning bicycles. Today, all of our local strip malls (small
shopping centers) have signage that prohibits/bans the
use of bicycles ( along with roller skates, roller blades,
and skate boards). The strip mall management representative
told me that their insurance required them to ban bikes
as a safety requirement. Rather than design an urban
environment that would provide a safe area for bikes to
operate in - bikes are banned. In our little DC suburbia,
a little over 99 percent of the commercial traffic is
from motorized vehicles, less than 1 percennt of commerical
traffic is by foot, and 0 percent of commericial traffic is by
bicycle. After listening to cyclist - I can see why
developers don't want bikes - a safe separate biking
lane takes up valuable real estate - and betting drivers
would peacefully share crowded asphalt with cyclist
appears to be a risky proposition. Its framed as a
zero sum game - Cyclists vs Drivers


.

[george conklin]

"drydem"
In our little DC suburbia,

Post by drydem
a little over 99 percent of the commercial traffic is
from motorized vehicles, less than 1 percennt of commerical
traffic is by foot, and 0 percent of commericial traffic is by
bicycle.

Can you imagine the cost of what you were buying if it had to hand-carried
in by bicyles? I've seen that in India....men struggling to deliver heavy
goods draped over bicycles. They walk. The goods ride. They earn a few
cents per day. Your vision is horrible. You have had zero experience
living in a bicycle-age society. You are good for a laugh.

[Pat]

Post by george conklin
"drydem"
 In our little DC suburbia,

a little  over 99 percent of the commercial traffic is
from motorized vehicles, less than 1 percennt of commerical
traffic is by foot, and 0 percent of commericial traffic is by
bicycle.

Can you imagine the cost of what you were buying if it had to hand-carried
in by bicyles?  I've seen that in India....men struggling to deliver heavy
goods draped over bicycles.  They walk.  The goods ride.  They earn a few
cents per day.  Your vision is horrible.  You have had zero experience
living in a bicycle-age society.  You are good for a laugh.

Real estate is valuable and government regulates the c**p out of it,
which adds to the cost of building. So once you take coverage and
setbacks into account, of course there are no bike lanes. They are
just too expensive, considering that few people will ever use them.

If the bike path is 6' wide and 1000' long, then that 6000 s.f. path
is the equivalent of an additional store. If the owner is making $100/
s.f.; that bike path costed $60,000 per year -- effectively
$6,000,000. There's no way the riders will contribute enough to sales
to pay for the loss of a store.

From a mall's perspective, think about the average biker. If it's an
adult, he/she doesn't carry a wallet, can't carry much home, and isn't
sneaking off on a side trip to Mrs. Fields Cookies. If it's a teen,
he/she is just there to hang out with friends, not shop because of the
issue above plus the fact that the teen is probably too young (or
poor) to drive. These are really bad demographics for a mall.

It's not an insurance issue. It's not a safety issue. Those things
can be dealt with. It's that riders are a bad demographic for a mall
and therefore the owners would just as soon have you go somewhere
else.

Meanwhile, a 17-year-old who's rich parents just bought her a new SUV
(for safety), is a great demographic for the mall. Lots of money.
Likes to shop. Must look good for school. She wins.

[drydem]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
"drydem"
 In our little DC suburbia,

a little  over 99 percent of the commercial traffic is
from motorized vehicles, less than 1 percennt of commerical
traffic is by foot, and 0 percent of commericial traffic is by
bicycle.

Can you imagine the cost of what you were buying if it had to hand-carried
in by bicyles?  I've seen that in India....men struggling to deliver heavy
goods draped over bicycles.  They walk.  The goods ride.  They earn a few
cents per day.  Your vision is horrible.  You have had zero experience
living in a bicycle-age society.  You are good for a laugh.

Real estate is valuable and government regulates the c**p out of it,
which adds to the cost of building.  So once you take coverage and
setbacks into account, of course there are no bike lanes.  They are
just too expensive, considering that few people will ever use them.
If the bike path is 6' wide and 1000' long, then that 6000 s.f. path
is the equivalent of an additional store.  If the owner is making $100/
s.f.; that bike path costed $60,000 per year -- effectively
$6,000,000.  There's no way the riders will contribute enough to sales
to pay for the loss of a store.

The safety data sheet I got from a cycling advocate
did state you need about 6 feet per bike lane. Heavy
load carrying tricycles (like the ones used in China
and India) would require even wider lanes and would
travel at a much slower speed than today's mountain
bikes..

Post by Pat
From a mall's perspective, think about the average biker.  If it's an
adult, he/she doesn't carry a wallet, can't carry much home, and isn't
sneaking off on a side trip to Mrs. Fields Cookies.  If it's a teen,
he/she is just there to hang out with friends, not shop because of the
issue above plus the fact that the teen is probably too young (or
poor) to drive.  These are really bad demographics for a mall.
It's not an insurance issue.  It's not a safety issue.  Those things
can be dealt with.  It's that riders are a bad demographic for a mall
and therefore the owners would just as soon have you go somewhere
else.
Meanwhile, a 17-year-old who's rich parents just bought her a new SUV
(for safety), is a great demographic for the mall.  Lots of money.
Likes to shop.  Must look good for school.  She wins.

I suspect that your answer is closer to the *real*
truth than the *official* one I got from the retail
management company's public relations officer.
The deception being borne due to the fact that
their actual motivation is not poltically correct.

I've notice that when a bicyclist is killed in a
traffic accident in DC area - no charges are
filed against the motorist(if they stop) - most of the time
it seems that authorities/the press work from
the assumption that the cyclist did something
wrong (usually the cyclist is dead and the evidence
is pretty sparse - so the liabilty from a cyclist
getting hurt or most likely killed appears to
be minimal) . So the insurance liablity argument
is probably just a smoke screen....

[Pat]

Post by drydem

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
"drydem"
 In our little DC suburbia,

a little  over 99 percent of the commercial traffic is
from motorized vehicles, less than 1 percennt of commerical
traffic is by foot, and 0 percent of commericial traffic is by
bicycle.

Can you imagine the cost of what you were buying if it had to hand-carried
in by bicyles?  I've seen that in India....men struggling to deliver heavy
goods draped over bicycles.  They walk.  The goods ride.  They earn a few
cents per day.  Your vision is horrible.  You have had zero experience
living in a bicycle-age society.  You are good for a laugh.

Real estate is valuable and government regulates the c**p out of it,
which adds to the cost of building.  So once you take coverage and
setbacks into account, of course there are no bike lanes.  They are
just too expensive, considering that few people will ever use them.
If the bike path is 6' wide and 1000' long, then that 6000 s.f. path
is the equivalent of an additional store.  If the owner is making $100/
s.f.; that bike path costed $60,000 per year -- effectively
$6,000,000.  There's no way the riders will contribute enough to sales
to pay for the loss of a store.

The safety data sheet I got from a cycling advocate
did state you need about 6 feet per bike lane.  Heavy
load carrying tricycles (like the ones used in China
and India) would require even wider lanes and would
travel at a much slower speed than today's mountain
bikes..

Post by Pat
From a mall's perspective, think about the average biker.  If it's an
adult, he/she doesn't carry a wallet, can't carry much home, and isn't
sneaking off on a side trip to Mrs. Fields Cookies.  If it's a teen,
he/she is just there to hang out with friends, not shop because of the
issue above plus the fact that the teen is probably too young (or
poor) to drive.  These are really bad demographics for a mall.
It's not an insurance issue.  It's not a safety issue.  Those things
can be dealt with.  It's that riders are a bad demographic for a mall
and therefore the owners would just as soon have you go somewhere
else.
Meanwhile, a 17-year-old who's rich parents just bought her a new SUV
(for safety), is a great demographic for the mall.  Lots of money.
Likes to shop.  Must look good for school.  She wins.

I suspect that your answer is closer to the *real*
truth than the *official* one I got from the retail
management company's public relations officer.
The deception being borne due to the fact that
their actual motivation is not poltically correct.
I've notice that when a bicyclist is killed in a
traffic accident in DC area  - no charges are
filed against the motorist(if they stop) - most of the time
it seems that authorities/the press work from
the assumption that the cyclist did something
wrong (usually the cyclist is dead and the evidence
is pretty sparse - so the liabilty from a cyclist
getting hurt or most likely killed appears to
be minimal) . So the insurance liablity argument
is probably just a smoke screen....

FYI, from out local paper (granted, we're in the middle of nowhere, so
we usually don't have any news in it):
http://www.salamancapress.com/articles/2008/09/04/news/doc48c03da7d0e45276246634.txt

[Jack May]

?I've notice that when a bicyclist is killed in a
?traffic accident in DC area - no charges are
?filed against the motorist(if they stop) - most of the time
?it seems that authorities/the press work from
?the assumption that the cyclist did something
?wrong (usually the cyclist is dead and the evidence
?is pretty sparse - so the liabilty from a cyclist
?getting hurt or most likely killed appears to
?be minimal) .

There have been statements by at least one police department in the San
Francisco Bay Area that when there is a car-bike accident, they find that
almost every time the bike rider is the main cause of the accident. Not a
big surprise with the things we all see bike riders doing.

[drydem]

Post by george conklin
"drydem"
 In our little DC suburbia,

a little  over 99 percent of the commercial traffic is
from motorized vehicles, less than 1 percennt of commerical
traffic is by foot, and 0 percent of commericial traffic is by
bicycle.

Can you imagine the cost of what you were buying if it had to hand-carried
in by bicyles?  I've seen that in India....men struggling to deliver heavy
goods draped over bicycles.  They walk.  The goods ride.  They earn a few
cents per day.  Your vision is horrible.  You have had zero experience
living in a bicycle-age society.  You are good for a laugh.

I agree that a car or truck makes transporting heavy loads,
e.g. from grocery shopping, an easier and more practical.

However, with respect to the "Smart Growth" vision that
I often see being advocated - it seems to me that the
bicycle commerical traffic being advocated does not require
transporting heavy loads, e.g. employee commutig to work,
the customer base of a restaurant or a bank.