Old 03-11-09, 09:58 AM
  #51  
Patrick_C
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
but when a bike would hold up traffic in these urban areas patrick thinks don't need bike infrastructure, the cyclist should leave the road entirely for the conveinence of motorists.

bikes also should also not be riding on higher speed roads.

and communities shouldn't plan for bikes by adding bike lanes in urban areas, just paths.

got it.

here's the catch, patrick:

cities that have bike master plans and are building bike lanes in urban areas embrace on-street 'vehicular cycling' as fundament in their bicycle transportation planning.
No, for bicyclists on rural roads there could be a number of facilities, in particular, a "pull out" for a length that would allow the queue of motorcars behind the cyclist to pass, not forcing the cyclist to pull over and stop completely. Think of it as a kind of "passing lane" for motorcars on facilities designed for bicycle use.

People shouldn't be riding their bicycles on dangerous roads. Since bicycle transportation planning is near ZERO in the United States, this would mean almost EVERY SINGLE high speed road. The most dangerous of roads are those that are designed for both high speed and volume. Paths are needed to avoid those kinds of roads, not urban streets that carry lower volumes of traffic at lower speeds.
Patrick_C is offline