NaBloPoMo, 08 November 2014 edition - Knotweed and pumpkins

In 2013, I cleared a few square yards of an established stand of Japanese knotweed, an invasive plant which grows eight feet in height and totally overwhelms its environment. I did not try to do too good a job of clearing it, just yanking out as much root as would come with a strong pull. It was a "proof of concept" experiment, intended to see how solidly the area would grow back in 2014.

The experiment was successful. Certainly there was grow-back, as I knew there would be, but it was much less dense. It took less than an hour to re-pull the area I put five or six hours into clearing in 2013. A few yards away, I began a second experimental clearing, this time trying very hard to yank out every bit of root and rhizome, to be evaluated in 2015.

What else I learned in 2014 is that pumpkins can be used as a replacement cover crop. I'm not sure about this, but am willing to try it out. Theoretically it should have some beneficial effect, as pumpkins spread sideways and cover the ground well, where they get established. The problem I see is that knotweed starts coming up in April, long before pumpkins get started, and by July are taller than a human adult.

To that end, I am gathering as many pumpkins as I can, now that Hallowe'en is over. My intent is to outdo the knotweed in those couple of experimental clearings. If I get enough of a supply, I might just toss a pumpkin or two into an uncleared stand, just to see what happens. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, right?

Right now, though, it's pumpkin gathering time. I know I can carry a 10-pounder to my clearing. I will see how easily I can carry anything larger. My clearing isn't too far away to walk to, but it is rather secluded. But I will get them there, one way or another, and keep my eye on developments next year.

NaBloPoMo, 07 November edition - The Ninja Pedestrian

It was still dark as I walked Perrymont to catch the bus this morning. I've walked it thousands of times before, and this trip was no different, except for walking instead of biking. I know the shoulder of the road well, I know what cars do at every spot, I know where to anticipate wildlife making an appearance, I know every barking dog and motion-sensor light. There isn't much to surprise me.

Except this morning, I saw a shape appear out of the gloom, walking toward me. In those first hundredths of a second, my mind tried to make any sense out of the signals my eyes were sending it, and not succeeding. It probably did take a full second to realize the shape was human, and another to size up what was happening.

In short, nothing. It was just a pedestrian, walking westward as I was walking eastward, on my side of the road. Tall, male, maybe 40s. The problem was, he was dressed about as darkly as one could imagine, and was walking on the wrong side. Contrast this with me, who not only was wearing a light colored jacket, but also had on a flashing amber light which reflected off the road signs 200 meters ahead of me.

Cyclists and non-cyclists alike gripe about "ninja" bike riders, all in black, neither lights nor reflectors, not following the rules. Same applies to pedestrians. If I couldn't see him, moving 3 mph, how would a motorist moving 35 mph? Of course if he was hit, the driver would be faulted, but pedestrians (and cyclists) being stupid do not help matters any. Heck, even a white baseball cap would have helped.

Walking Perrymont is no picnic. Being on the wrong side is actually necessary in a couple of places because it's safer to be, no matter the weather, or lighting or road conditions. But not there. I follow the rules when it makes sense to, and act safely when the rules make it less safe.

But safety starts with making it possible for anyone else not to hit you, thus highlighting the first component in my mantra of "Be Visible, Be Predictable, Be Responsible."

Bike lights and batteries

I figure I have $100 tied up in bike lights and batteries. Actually, that's an underestimate, as I've spent a good bit more over the years in failed attempts to get a set of lights that get the job done and do not self-destruct.

A long while back, I stopped buying alkaline batteries. I hate alkalines. They are little time bombs, only instead of going bang, they start leaking, and in so doing, corroding every contact and switch, every bit of circuitry, every thread of anything threaded. Here's a photo of one of the house's clocks -- still working, despite all the leakage. You just never know if your light has been destroyed until you take it apart and find it such.

I started getting serious about being lit properly after a late evening trip home. It was only a couple of miles, but I had no light, and someone very nearly left-crossed me. Of course I was at fault, but at the time I neither knew the rules nor had the money to buy any light, let alone a good one. But so began the quest to put and keep a functional light on my bike, front and rear.

Long ago, I lost count of the failed attempts. I will, however, try to inventory what I do have now, and what it cost me. If you have a C-note, this would be a good place to spend it to get one bike lit properly.
* Pack of four rechargeable AA cells, plus recharging unit  ($20)
* Pack of four rechargeable AAA cells, plus recharging unit ($20)
* Planet Bike Superflash taillight ($35)
* Planet Bike Beamer 3 headlight ($25)
That's $100, roughly. One charger goes to work, the second stays home. Two of the AAs go in the light, the other two go in your toolbag. Two of the AAAs go in the taillight, the other two in the bag.

About once a week, depending on how much night riding you do, switch out the pairs in use for the others, and put the depleted ones on the charger.

*

In actuality, I employ far more than the above. I have two headlights, and three taillights. One of those taillight sets is clipped to my helmet. One of the headlights is an older but very bright model which requires a heavy battery pack, and must be plugged in every couple of days. They make newer, brighter, much lighter light systems; buy them if you can afford to.

Do not skimp on lights, though. If you cannot afford the $100 up front, plan to spend $15 to $25/month until you do have all the pieces you need.

NaBloPoMo, 02 November edition: Suburban road diets, en masse

http://ktla.com/2014/11/01/3-girls-killed-in-hit-run-while-trick-or-treating-in-santa-ana-were-thrown-100-feet-2-sought/

About those three girls killed in California last night. The speed limit on that residential street is 45, though it drops to 25 right at that corner. 45? Are you fucking kidding me? FORTY-FIVE is the speed limit in a residential area? If it's posted 45, then what's the ambient speed? 55? What constitutes "speeding", then? 60? 80?
The article says the speed limit there is 35, but a quick look on StreetView shows a 45 sign just a block away, followed immediately by a sign for the school zone. The girls were killed crossing the street in front of the school (which had closed for the day).
StreetView link: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7733097,-117.8523303,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKAc3XqZK7V-Pu4FoVxuuOw!2e0

In the news story, one estimate is that the car was going 70 mph (twice the incorrectly stated 35). Double 45 would be 90. How fast do you need to be going to throw a human body 100 feet, as happened here? Whatever the number, how does anyone justify traveling even close to the posted limit in a residential area, adjacent to a school? Some of this is stupidity by design. Four, five lanes across? Those sidewalks are amazingly narrow, with no separation between them and the street, and beyond that, have utility poles and stabilizing wires sharing that space. Seriously. Knock out an entire lane of street in both directions, and drop the speed limit to TWENTY-FIVE for that main drag. Thirty, tops.

I've driven all over suburbia, growing up in metro Buffalo, living in Pittsburgh 30 years, and being sent all over to Sunnyvale CA, Beaumont TX, Orlando and Daytona Beach FL, Tucson AZ, and many other places. They're all much the same. Suburban main drags are posted way too high, ambient speeds are much faster, and the cops don't even care until you're 15 over. Always and always, the traffic engineers, from bottom to top, talk about "improved traffic flow". That's code talk for Push-As-Many-Cars-Through-Here-As-Possible-As-Fast-As-We-Can. Which, sorry, is just plain fucking wrong. SAFETY is more important than speed.

Why do we build roads this way? Why is it public policy that we do so? Lives and the living of it does appear to matter, at least sometimes, but we're not consistent about it. We've gone out of our minds about one person dying of ebola, but we routinely kill five people a day in vehicle collisions in every city in the country, and outside immediate family, nobody gives a flying fuck. They're forgotten by the next rush hour's newscast.

It's not just design, but practice. I see this in my own neighborhood. Perrymont is posted 35, and I can't count the number of times the county has repaired or replaced the guardrail by the dogleg turn at the bottom of the hill. Downhill on a 7% grade, with a dogleg turn at the bottom, hourly, people floor it coming down off of Perry Highway. They must be on the high side of 50 as they pass the end of my street, only 150 feet from that dogleg curve. Never mind that speed kills, what seems to matter is that speed thrills.

I used to think Babcock Boulevard, on my routine trip to work, was pretty chill, but I get the most grief on that half mile stretch, just outside Millvale from Rita's Ices to the Shop & Save. It's posted 35, but outbound it's just gone up from 25 so people see that 35 like it says 85, and inbound, it opens up into a flat, level stretch just after a tight S-curve, so people see it and think "dragstrip"!

In the 1980s, when some significant noise started being made about repealing the national 55 mph speed limit, I started noting the statistics for traffic deaths during holiday weekends, which always spike. Almost without exception each fatality occurred on a local road where the speed limit was 45 or less. Every holiday, every year, for years and years. Most fatal wrecks happen on local roads, and always have.

So there's speeding, and insanely high posted speed limits. Not the same thing, two almost separate arguments, but unarguably interconnected. The very idea of driving the speed limit, anywhere, is so foreign. Speed limits are usually set by the rate of travel that 85% of people would go, absent a sign. So, by default, speeding sets the speed limit.

I propose the exact opposite. Decide what the proper speed should be for each road segment, without any regard to demand, set the speed limit to that, and change the number, width and shape of the lanes so that people would go that speed, absent a sign.

In Santa Ana, Fairhaven should be one lane each way, with provision for a center turn lane. Eliminate that outside lane, extend the sidewalk a couple of feet, maybe even with a grass separator. No parking. Possibly recover some of that space for a bike lane, much as I don't care for them. I'm sure everyone there will howl about losing a driving lane, and having the speed limit lowered by almost half. But really, too bad so sad. And same goes for nearly every other suburban four/five-lane street in the country, particularly ones that scream through the center of a residential area.

Our roads are death traps, by design. Design them differently (by changing the design specs), get people to drive a reasonable speed without having to police it (by making them less amenable to speeding), and make it possible not to have to drive in the first place (by making them safer to walk or bike). We can care. We can change. We just have to decide to do it, and hold state departments of transportation to that.

NaBloPoMo, 01 Nov edition: Halloween 2014

2014 marks the 24th year I've given out coins at Hallowe'en. You would think that after all this time, I'd have lines at my door, but no, last night only nine kids. For all that, I thought turnout was pretty good, given that we had a light rain all evening. I have never had more than 20 kids at the door.

This year's treats were British threepence coins. While nothing special, I thinkit's something the kids can relate to. Each coin was in a simple 2x2. This I felt necessary so some tiny kid would not choke on a bare coin. Usually I label the 2x2, but that didn't happen this time. (It was all I could do t get the stapler to work properly and not leave sharp edges.)

Perhaps I should simply let my handout explain things further:

[

Halloween 2014

For children:

What you have is a British three pence coin. Three pence means “three pennies”. In the old British money system, this was roughly equal to our nickel, and at the time had about the buying power of today’s quarter. The coin has 12 sides. Pictured on it is either Queen Elizabeth II (queen since 1952) or her father, King George VI (king from 1936 to 1952). The last such coin was made in 1967. They became obsolete in 1971 when Great Britain “went decimal”, meaning they replaced their pence-shillings-pounds system (12 pence=1 shilling, 20 shillings=1 pound) with 100 pence equals a pound. The first threepences were minted in the 1540s.

For parents and children:

I give out coins at Halloween to interest children in the hobby of coin collecting. I’ve done it every year since I moved here in 1991. My idea is that by studying coins, a child will be able to relate everything they learn in school to some aspect of coins. The more you learn about coins, the more interesting each school subject becomes. On this one coin alone:

Languages: Both Latin and English inscriptions are used, just as on every U.S. coin. And a penny is denoted with a “d” (for Latin denarius), so a threepence is abbreviated 3d. We still use this system in this country in measuring construction nails.

Chemistry: It is made out of brass, an alloy (a mix) of copper (79%), zinc (20%), and nickel (1%).

History: An interesting story of how Queen Elizabeth’s father, George VI, came to be king. His brother, known as King Edward VIII, was only king for a few months then stepped down to hand the throne to George. A couple of Edward VIII threepence exist, and are extremely rare.

Physics: Quite a bit of technology went into manufacturing a coin with 12 sides, and ensuring it would hold up to daily use.

Art: Someone had to design the coin, both front (obverse) and back (reverse).

Economics: Why was this coin once made out of silver, as recently as about 100 years ago, and why did they stop?

Architecture: Look up “No. 1 Croydon” on Wikipedia. It’s a skyscraper in London, affectionately called the Threepenny Bit Building, because it looks like a stack of threepence coins.

Mathematics: A “thruppence” is 1/80^th of a pound. Find out about all the other ways the British have divided up their old pound into pennies, shillings, farthings, crowns, groats, florins, and several others.

Please learn about coins. The more you study, the more interesting everything else will become. I would be happy to visit classrooms, scout troops, and other community organizations to help kids learn about coins. I am selling nothing; I have nothing to sell. I am just trying to interest people in an enjoyable hobby.

Stuart Strickland · [address and phone number]

 ]

One mom said she looks forward to my annual handout, and has each of them in a safety deposit box. Um, that's actually counterproductive to my goals. I would rather the kids have and hold them, ask questions. Plus, I don't see any point in so carefully safeguarding a coin worth 40 cents. But if the kids really are not old enough to learn much yet (some were pre-school), yeah, there's not much point.
Ah well, I will keep up hope. When they do have questions, at least they will know whom to ask.

PA state bicycle laws, in a nutshell

I sent the following to the members of the bicycle-and-pedestrian committee in Millvale a few weeks ago as input to a newsletter and cycling course they are planning. While I am not a Millvale resident and thus not a member of the committee, I am very interested in what Millvale plans to do concerning cycling there, as I bike through it a half dozen times a week.

* * *

I hope I can attend tonight's meeting, but there's a chance I cannot. That said, I have a few thoughts on the residents' manual on safe use of the roads.

State vehicle law directs how things should work. Here is a link to Title 75, Chapter 33, which contains many of the relevant statutes:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=75&div=0&chpt=33

Modify the 33 to 31, 35, 37, or 38, as necessary, to see the other relevant statutes.

* Cyclists do need to stop at red lights and stop signs. (3111a)

* Cyclists in business districts should be in the street, not on the sidewalk (3508b)

* Cyclists who are on the sidewalk must give right-of-way to pedestrians (3508a)

* Cyclists have to use the right-hand lane, if there is more than one, but may use the full lane, at any time. (3301b2ii, 3301c1). 

The "as close as practicable" *does not mean* to hug the right edge of the road or ride very close to cars. That is dangerous. On every street in Millvale that I can think of, it is too narrow for cyclists to be anywhere but squarely in the center of the lane. Motorists simply have to change lanes to pass a cyclist if they can see to safely pass, and if they cannot, to get in line behind the cyclist and go his or her speed. This is not negotiable. (Also not popular, but too bad.)

The safest place for a cyclist to be, on any street, at any time, is in the left tire track, or just a couple inches to the right. NOT on the right edge.

There is no need to "get out of the way". It is perfectly legal to ride a bicycle 12 mph on a 25 mph street.

Lighting: Cyclists do need to be properly lit, with a headlight on the front, and at least a reflector in the back, if not also a blinking light. (3507a)

Traffic lights: If a traffic signal is supposed to detect the presence of a waiting vehicle, and does not detect a bicycle, the cyclist may proceed through the red signal after coming to a complete stop and ensuring there is no conflicting traffic. (3112c2)

* Motorists need to give four feet of space to pass a cyclist (3303a3), but may legally cross a double yellow center line (3301a6) if it is otherwise safe to do so (3305, 3307b1).

* Motorists may not "right-hook" a cyclist, i.e., drive just past them and turn right, nor "left-cross" a cyclist, i.e., turn left across an oncoming rider. (3331e)

* Motorists may not "door" a cyclist, i.e., open a car door such that the cyclist would hit it, or be knocked into the path of a following vehicle. (3705)

I'm sure I missed a couple, but this should provide a good start.

Critical Mass Pittsburgh, August 2014: East Street

[still technically an unfinished draft; I haven't written the part from Perrysville and East to back into the city, and out Penn Ave to 16th Street]

My plan was to tackle riding a couple of difficult streets in a law-abiding manner. CM in other cities is an in-your-face taking over of the streets by as many bicycles as can be assembled in one spot. We don't do that here, at least not on this ride. (The closest to that is the Pittsburgh Underwear Ride, which I regularly ride, and recommend heartily.) CM here is about cyclists re-claiming the streets, which is the point of CM, but by assertively taking the lane and adhering to traffic laws, we intend to gain the respect of motorists. Other locations' CM rides which do not do this do the cause of cyclist rights as much harm as good.

Our turnout was tiny, only five at the start, though we picked up two more on the North Side. This is OK by me. I'm for quality, not quantity. Our plan was to ride up East Street, a 35 mph street which few cyclists tackle. Why so few? I wanted to find out. The whole point of our CM is to figure out what makes certain streets undesirable, and so to devise any recommendations.

From our start at Dippy (the dinosaur statue next to the Carnegie Museums and Library in Oakland), we headed first out Forbes and left onto Craig Street. It's a narrow street, so there is no question that we would fill the lane. Since there were only five of us, there is also no concern about corking, as we can stay together and pass as one through any change of a traffic signal. For all that, we have decided we will not cork, should we ever get large enough, but split into groups so as to pass through each corner legally.

After we got past the Baum Blvd corner, the lane widens a bit, so we took the full lane. Why? Because there are two lanes. The law requires us to use the right-most lane or as far to the right as practicable. On a multi-lane street, the first half of that "or" clause applies, so we used the whole lane, without apology. It's also safer that way.

We continued doing that after the merge with Bigelow Blvd, but upon taking the split to get on the Bloomfield Bridge, we fully occupied the single lane prior to the merge point for traffic from outbound Bigelow. There, we are using the other half of that "or", but in doing that, "as far to the right as practicable" means, literally, for us to take the lane, forcing any cars that come up behind us to stay behind us. It is not safe for anyone to pass us here. We take the lane, we get into the merged lane as one, and any cars that were there, just had to follow us. This is both legal and desirable, because to do anything else would be unsafe.

Once on the bridge, the lane we were in was the left of the two forward lanes. We maintained course in the left lane, which would seem to defy the law, but what we are doing is also preparing to make a left turn, and the law does allow that pedalcycles may use the left lane when preparing to make a left turn. It would also be unsafe to try to get over to the right, as we would only have to get back over to the left in 300 yards. While the bridge is posted 25 mph, ambient motor traffic speeds are more like 45 mph on a routine basis. Maintaining course in that left lane is the only safe way to travel. Once again, CM is claiming our rightful use of the streets.

A left onto Liberty Avenue, and we had what would seem to be a good thing, but is not. Liberty has a "door zone bike lane" from here down to Herron Avenue. Bike lanes might seem like a good thing, but when they are plastered right up against a line of parked cars, as is the case here, the bike lane is precisely where NOT to ride. The traffic lane itself is also not wide enough for bikes and cars to ride side-by-side within the lane. But the two together do provide enough horizontal space to keep a safe distance from the cars while at the same time allow unfettered passing by motorists, them giving us the requisite four feet of horizontal space. To do this, I got right on top of the white line marking the left edge of the bike lane. Really, that lane should be moved left a couple of feet, and a buffer placed between the parking lane and the bike lane.

At the corner of 40th Street, the parking lane is replaced by a right-turn-only lane for cars turning onto 40th. Bikes and buses can continue straight from this lane. This is a tad confusing for people, motorists and cyclists alike. Cyclists have to make sure that cars are not going to cut them off while trying to make a right turn. What motorists making a right are supposed to do is merge into any bike traffic in the bike lane, giving any cyclists the right of way if the cyclist is there first. OTOH, cyclists should yield right of way to any motorist who is there first. Cyclists actually have to get slightly left as they go through the intersection, as the parking lane resumes immediately after the corner, and the DZBL appears to be a bit left of where they typically end up when approaching that corner. Even for side by side cyclists and motorists, it's still a bit sticky as the cyclist has to travel those few horizontal feet closer to that car.

Past 40th, the downhill on Liberty gets scary. Cyclists should actually abandon the bike lane and just get in the traffic lane here. There is no room for error in the bike lane; if a motorist opened a door into a cyclist going down the hill at 25 mph or better, the resulting collision would send the cyclist airborne for several yards, and the result would be major injuries, or worse. Motorists, too, should be cognizant of this possibility, and understand and accept that the safest place for a cyclist to be is fully in the driving lane. If that means they must operate their cars below the posted limit of 35, then so be it.

After Herron, Liberty becomes one wide inbound lane but without a marked bike lane, so it becomes easier for cyclists to co-exist with same-direction motorists for the couple hundred yards down to where we turned at 32nd Street. We could have turned at 33rd, but it comes up quick and is banked slightly the wrong way. 31st is very busy because of the bridge over the river. But 32nd is one way from Liberty to Penn, so that's the cross street we took. It was easy to get in the left lane of 32nd, to make the left onto Penn.

Penn is two-way at 32nd (one wide lane each direction) but becomes one-way at 31st, so we got into and stayed in the right lane. Somewhere between 31st and 25th, two cyclists unaffiliated with the ride passed us, the first on the left, the second on the right. The guy passing us on the left had no problem at all -- he just got in the left lane, gunned it, and got right past us without any problem. The guy passing us on the right had to call out several times to let us know he was there, and even then, it wasn't obvious who was saying what, or why. Only after he got in among us did I realize he was unaffiliated. Frankly, I preferred the passer on the left. He did not need anyone's OK or attention. Just like a motorist should, he changed lanes, passed us, and got back in the lane in front of us.

A brief regroup at the red light for 16th Street, then we turned as one and started across the bridge. This seemed a little uncomfortable. If there is supposed to be a lane separation there, I couldn't detect it, not until 150 yards later when the stripes for the lane separations became somewhat apparent. I say somewhat because they were easier to see from behind than when directly upon them. We took the lane, but having said that, there was no clear delineation of which lane we were taking, starting across. Once firmly established on the bridge, it was clearer, and as usual, cars went flying past us at well over the speed limit. Or were they? What is the speed limit on the 16th St Bridge, anyway? There is no sign! Is it 25, the speed limit on outbound Penn? Or 35, the speed limit on Liberty? Or, since there is no sign, so by default, 55? Whatever the number, motorists scream across the bridge. But hey, they scream across every bridge. To make up for crawling through every tunnel, I guess.

Hey city (or whoever owns this bridge): Howsbout making it clearer that 25 is the preferred speed limit, and then enforce that?

16^th becomes Chestnut St on the north end of the bridge. A second meetup location was planned for the corner of Chestnut and Progress, but there was nobody there. I'd figured on getting there about 6:35; it was actually about 6:45 when we went past. I doubt anyone would have given up that quickly. (We did pick up two more later, on East St.)

From there, we crossed East Ohio Street, continuing on Chestnut Street, with its bricks and trolley tracks. This is close to dangerous, as it is slightly downhill and so quite easy to move with some velocity. The brick surface is enough to jiggle loose various body parts, and while the rails look nice and smooth, they will surely dump you if you get in them. Edge riding is out of the question, as you are right up against that right rail. There is no question that cyclists have to take the lane and ride between the rails. There is no other way to do it. And motorists damn well better give them some space here! We had no trouble, but others might not be so lucky. I know that when I drive along here, I try to get the car up on the steel rails to smooth out the ride. Cyclists can't do that. But this underscores my belief that rail tracks and cyclists are not a good mix, and uneven bricks make it a most unpleasant and unforgiving a piece of road.

Shortly we came to the corners of first Spring Garden Avenue, then Concord St, where we had to make a left. These are nasty corners. The first is very wide, with a lot of traffic on the cross street. At the second, also very wide, oncoming traffic is coming down a steep hill. Executing a left requires a cyclist to get fully into the middle of the street, which can be unsettling if you're not accustomed to doing that, and it has to be done on a moderate uphill, besides. The group actually came to a standstill in the middle of the corner to get our bearings, rather not on purpose. It might actually be easier to seek out a quasi-legal alternative to getting through here, because the legal way just isn't safe. Adding darkness or any weather condition to the mix would only make it worse. If I had to do this every day, I would try to figure out some of the back streets through this neighborhood.

Concord St itself, once we got onto it, was not difficult, a typical narrow, one-way street, with house fronts that come almost up to the curb. These would be ideal for cycling, if it weren't for all the damned cars.

With a quick right, we were onto what became, one short block later, East Street. At this very spot is also the on-ramp to I-279 north, so traffic speeds approaching from the left were insanely high for a 25 mph street, though most were well to the left, headed for the ramp. The problem isn't the traffic itself headed up East, a steady trickle, but the perception of speed. Once we were around the corner, cars could easily get past us for the one brief block where it is two lanes, but then had to get behind us for about 50 yards (that left lane becomes a left turn over the highway), and that was a little unsettling. Once past that, East is one lane for another tenth of a mile or so before the stripes separate it into two northbound lanes, the right of which we took. As with any other two-lane street, there really is no space for cyclists and motorists to both be in the same lane at the same time, so they had to get behind us. In addition, there is a barely perceptible right bend in the road here, making it difficult to see oncoming traffic too far ahead, though that traffic is posted 15 mph in preparation for a right-turn-only over the aforementioned bridge. Motorists really do have to cross the double yellow to pass us here. But this is also where the speed limit changes to 35, which really means ambient speeds of 45 or more, so drivers are impatient.

East Street was last worked on when it was built -- rebuilt, actually -- as part of the I-279 construction in the 1980s. It is made up of badly eroded concrete slabs. Every piece has the edges ground off, rubber dividers stick up everywhere, and longitudinal slots separate the lanes more than the white stripes do. This street is supposed to be repaved in 2014, but at ride time, this had not happened.

Once East opened up to two outbound lanes, we had little trouble. Cars went flying past us in the left lane continuously, but not a single horn, and no shouts out the window. It is a long but mild climb, not particularly difficult, just a couple of miles of steady 2 or 3% grade, a climb of 380 feet over 2.7 miles. The last little bit, after East splits to go up to its terminus at Perrysville Avenue, is a little steeper, 130 feet over a half mile, for about 5%. We took a breather at the top. Even this last little bit wasn't too bad. While we did not hug the parked cars, we did keep as far right as practicable, single file. Cars coming up behind us did have to cross the double yellow; the lanes are still not wide enough to accommodate both us and them without that being necessary. Even on a wide street, that is still necessary. Sometimes there were a few parking spaces open, allowing us to veer into them briefly, but that is not a sustainable practice, as we do move along continuously, though slowly uphill, and with several of us at once, at least one of us is not going to be in the parking lane.