randya

Do you believe that cyclists should be prevented from using the roadway if a bikelane or sidepath is available for use? Simple yes or no answer.

skanking biker

No.

zeytoun

I voted no, although I am okay with some of the current laws that have the "use the bike lane except in such-and-such cases (going as fast as traffic, intersections, obstacles, road-hazards, etc)"

galen_52657

Does it matter what cyclists think???

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031301606.html

N_C

Who the hell was the clown who voted yes?

Cromulent

No.

randya

Probably Helmet Head. (Just so it wasn't unanimous...)

N_C

Mr. VC himself, say it ain't so!

genec

I would not restrict rights, but practicality can make a difference in whether or not the sidepath gets used. Typical sidepaths are nothing more than glorified sidewalks... if they are glorified in any manner what so ever.

However a decent (clean) wide (10-12 foot) dedicated (not an MUP) path that is not at grade (designed like a freeway) can and will encourage cyclists to use the path vice the road. Anything else is just a waste of money, and invites dumb motorists to think they own the road.

skanking biker

Upkeep is also a concern. If I encounter a bikepath filled with glass, sticks, stones, etc., I won't use it. Just like I would use a stretch of road that is not properly maintained. Hence my reason for wanting the option to use either/or.

Treespeed

If you think that there is only one correct answer, why have a poll?

Cyclaholic

Who the hell gave you the power to tell me what my opinion should be?

randya

So you're the second 'yes' vote?

Keith99

I'm trying. I'm really trying. I know a good pop of the bike paths in the Los Angeles area. Some are pretty nice.

But as try as I might I can not think of a sidepath that is contunous for more than 2 miles that is next to a street. Now some of the river paths come close to if not more than 40 miles but they take their own route. The bike path next to the Orange line is about 20 miles long, but the longest part without a street crossing that is the equivalent of coming off the sidewalk is less than 2 miles. (And technically the path ends with each crossing, at least that is what the signs say).

Forcing riders to use a path that will only exist for a couple of miles out of a 20 mile ride makes no sense.

Cyclaholic

No, that was mine.

slagjumper

I voted "No", but there are some areas where I live that the MUP is next to the parkway. No bike riding there.

randya

I would say that limited access roads are a special case.

The point I was trying to make with this thread is that 90% of the respondents do not agree with mandatory sidepath laws; most believe that cyclists should have their choice of options, and that cyclists' access to the roadway should not be denied. My conclusion is that it is primarily non-cyclists who advocate for compulsory sidepath laws. I believe this supports the proposal put forth by ChipCom that cyclists should be working together, from a position of unity and strength, to advocate for a wide variety of properly-designed on and off street improvements for cyclists, rather than bickering among themselves over the narrow-minded VC agenda. And that all cyclists, whether they self identify as VC, AC, or something else, should also be working together to oppose mandatory bike lane or sidepath laws, instead of opposing the lanes and paths themselves.

I-Like-To-Bike

Where are sidepaths available for use in US urban areas outside of park lands or along side limited access highways?

Bruce Rosar

As a cyclist, I don't advocate against facilities that cyclists can use. As a matter of fact, I just used some of them (public roads) this afternoon (and it felt great, thank you

As a citizen, I do oppose government sponsorship of facilities intended to separate individual travelers on the basis of a classification (i.e., governmental segregation involving a fundamental right). For example, a designated bicycle lane is defined as:

where bicyclists is a classification.

The good news is that government sponsored segregation of public facilities is not necessary; almost all of them in the US were desegregated back in the previous century (and, BTW, most were not dismantled as a result).

sbhikes

The boogey man of mandatory sidepath laws. Oooh I'm so scared.

cuda2k

No. There are times and places and uses for side paths, and there are times, places and uses for the road. Knowing the difference is the key.

UmneyDurak

You sure get fired up fast.

bigpedaler

I DID ! !
NO, IT WAS ME ! !
SHUT UP, BOTH OF YOU! !

sorry....
(roses are red, violets are blue...











i'm schizophrenic,
and so am i.)

slagjumper

==
Say no to mandatory use of MUPs when MUPs are present. Agree

Work together to advocate for a variety of properly-designed on and off street improvements for cyclists. Agree

jabowker

We have a few around here and I generaly will avoid using them. Fortunately we don't have a mandatory side path law. I have read of them in other states that do have the law and how troublesome that it is.