Chris L

It appears as though somebody else has had similar experiences to myself in this area:

https://www.living-room.org/bikepeople/bikepaths.htm

mike

I like bike paths.

In a perfect world, automobiles would give bikes plenty of space, be courteous, and drive safely.

Until this happens, I like bike paths that keep me out of traffic. Many times, these paths go along the most scenic parts of the city in a park-like setting. They get me to where I want to go in a clean, peaceful, safe environment.

Even bike lanes offer me a part of the road that says to the driver "Stay away".

Right now, I like bike paths and bike lanes.

john999

There's a bike path from Darwin to Palmerston built on the old railway track.

It's straight, level, and actually *shorter* in distance to Palmerston.
It's well away from the traffic and noise, and goes through defence dept reserve land (i.e. scrubland).

That's a bikepath I like.
I hate the ones they have in Adelaide, that wander through every square inch of a paddock before going to the next section.

John E

Good point -- we should not generalise and categorize all Class I (separated from motor vehicles) bikepaths as either evil or good. The safest, most efficient place to ride is probably in the main travel lane of a traffic-calmed residential street with a 25mph/40kph speed limit. I strongly oppose bike lanes and bike paths in these areas. However, when I need to access a major arterial boulevard or high-speed dual carriageway, then I want a wide shoulder, with or without a marked Class II bicycle lane. However, since high-speed freely-flowing merges and diverges are often dangerous and intimidating, I do welcome specially-designed bicycle bypasses.

One of the few Class I bikeways I use regularly is in Oceanside CA, along the San Luis Rey river. Pedestrians, though allowed, are scarce, and the alternative, the Highway 76 expressway, has a 65mph/105kph speed limit with several freely-flowing entrances and exits.

I generally dislike a bidirectional Class I bikeway which is retrofitted in parallel to a road, and which sets up cyclists to be "right-hooked" or otherwise struck at every intersection. I tried the one in Squaw Valley / west Lake Tahoe last summer; it was OK for playing tourist, but I would not want to rely on it for a daily commute.

aerobat

Looks like there are many definitions of "bike paths".

John E, I'm not sure of the strict def. of Class 1,2 etc. bikepaths, but it sounds like they are different from the "throught the park, for inliners, peds, sunday afternoon cyclists etc.".

I'm certainly in favour of bike paths, either separated from streets and highways totally, or at least a wide paved shoulder, as long as they are useful, ie. I can get to my destination fairly directly using them.

If they just meander and don't go anywhere they're not much use for commuting, but at least allow some of the non commuting cyclists to get off the main streets and cycle safely.

The preference obviously, is to have parallel bike paths/lanes, to give cyclists equal opportunity for efficient travel.

I wish the city planners would think about that when new paving, construction is planned. That would get some bikepaths started with minimum cost if they were incorporated at the same time as the main roadway.

MichaelW

With a bike lane parellel to a road, then at every junction, someone has to give way. As JohnE says, this is setting yourself up for a classic right hook. Its a kind of collision so common, we have a name for it.
If you stop at every junction, remember stopping loses you 100m of travel every time. That soon adds up. Id rather ride the real road alongside and control traffic in the usual manner.

One of the major arterial roads into my city has a parellel off-road bike path. At every junction, and every driveway, you have to be prepared to yield to cars. Its difficult and dangerous, and worse than that, makes people feel safe.

The kind of bike facilities which are useful are ones which get you out of danger, such as escapes from right-hand-turn-only lanes, or ways to cross difficult junctions. These are precisely the places where long straight bike lanes stop.

In London, some of the major cycle commuting routes are along canal tow paths. These are great for getting somewhere fast and safe, in pleasant surroundings.

Richard D

Faversham has one of these wonderful inventions, and the planners were clever enough to only run it one side of the road, choosing the side of the road with most intersections...

To be fair Canterbury has a few of these. I'm also in favour of those that link sections of road that would otherwise require a long ride round, often involving a complete U-turn at a roundabout - I suppose 'rat runs' exclusively for cyclists.

I'm not familiar with the bike lanes in london, but as I've probably bored people with already, the local advocacy group in conjunction with Sustrans have opened a route along an old railway, linking Whitstable and Canterbury - I'm quite envious of a colleagues commute...

Richard

mike

Just today, on my ride to work, some @ss-hole decided it would be fun to splash me with slush. Rather than go around me, he bore into my lane. In the process, he created a dangerous situation and almost clipped me. I saw him looking into his rear-view mirror laughing.

A few moments later, some sleepy eyed Latina woman must have felt too lazy to go around me, so she just overtook my lane and ran me into the gutter.

I would like ANYTHING to separate me from dirtballs like that. Even a wide shoulder with a painted line for a bike lane is better than mixing with the vast numbers of idiots who are allowed to drive cars.

Sure, cars can still enter a bike lane and kill a bicyclist, but I think the risk is reduced by having space designated as "cars not allowed" with fines and legal ramifications for idiots that drive in them.

aturley

I agree with the people who say that not all bike paths are equal. In Pacific Grove/Monterey, we have a bike path that runs down along the bay. It pretty much parallels Lighthouse Ave, which is two blocks over. I enjoy taking this on my morning commute because I get to see the ocean in the morning. Since it is by the ocean, there aren't a whole lot of crossings (just when you get to Cannery Row, which is between the ocean and the path), so I don't have to worry about cars too much. And it parallels Lighthouse, which is pretty much the only road that runs through town since they closed off public access to the Presidio.

These things being said, I can definitely see how in most cases, bike paths would be a bad thing, especially for serious cyclists (those who do more than just a weekend jaunt). They do encourage the idea that cyclist don't belong on the road, although not as much as bike lanes. And they do give people a false sense of security. Oh, and when crowded with pedestrians, they are useless.

I guess ideally I would want the right lane on roads to be a little wider so that cyclist could ride on the right without too much problem. Or, how about requiring cars to be a little narrower? Do you really need anything wider than a midsized sedan? If you do, they could be available, but you would need a special license for it, and to get that license you would have to show that you understand your responsiblities driving something that big. But I guess I'm just ranting now.

andy

John E

Whenever I attend a conference at Asilomar, I jog along the oceanfront path to which Andy refers. [Andy, the Monterey Peninsula is perhaps my favourite bit of turf on the entire planet.] This path works well because there are relatively few pedestrians, and, more importantly, very few intersections or traffic conflicts. We are trying to do something similar in San Diego, parallel to the San Diego Northern Railroad right-of-way.

Chris L

My main opposition to bikepaths (apart from the fact that I never feel safe using them) is that they chew up funds that could be spent on more useful facilities, such as on-road bike lanes or decent shoulders on the road. The Gold Coast City Council claims an annual cycling budget of $3million. That can be a lot or a little, depending on how it's spent. They might as well spend nothing if they're going to build facilities we can't use.

The whole idea of separate but equal is great in theory, but will never happen in the real world simply because the road infrastructure has come too far, and takes up too much space to ever allow it to happen. In any case, they don't really protect you from drivers because, if a driver really wants to take you out, they won't mind leaving the road to do it (as I have observed on many occasions).

As a consequence, we have paths that stop every 40 metres where you have to "dismount to cross road" (quoting the actual signs there), and of course, on all of them you have to "give way to pedestrians." In order to negotiate them safely, if you have a commute of any distance, you have to ride at a speed that will necessitate setting off at 3am if you intend to get to work on time.

RetroLung

Inhale some more CO2, Watch out for the car that is pulled over into your lane, be careful of the people who sneak up behind you and beep their horns to scare you and enjoy the pot holes on the side of the road.

Bike Paths are not that expensive. The reason why they are so dam costly is that some num nuts accountant allocates tons of administrative and fixed cost to these project (Kind of like are Public schools, what trickles down to the teacher and student represents a very little piece of the pie.) A politician (especially if he republican) would rather fix roads then build paths because developers give them more money then bicyclers.

To take it a point further, I would argue that special funds that are set aside for projects (like Bike Paths) get more then their fair share of shared cost allocated to help rational people like you to think just that: “Bike paths are more expensive then Bike Lanes.” and "Look at all the money they spent on Bike Paths, they got my vote" while the other citizenry thinks "I going to vote for this guy because he fixed the pot hole on my street” Don’t fall for that accounting magic or I will sale you some Enron Stock!!!!!!

Think about it what cost more a road that is 40 feet across that need to be repaired every other year or an eight-foot bike path that only needs repair every five years.

Chris L

Fact 1: You inhale a ton of CO2 just by merely living in the city. The difference between road and bike path in this respect is negligible. Don't want to inhale CO2 (or all the other crap) go and live in the country.

Fact 2: People aroudn here will sneak up and beep their horn whether you are on the road or on the adjacent bike path. Again, the difference here is negligible. Don't want to get honked, don't ride a bike.

Fact 3: Pot holes on the road are much easier to avoid than broken glass on the bike path (something very common around here) because on the road you have much more space. And of course, the path also has overhanging branches, pedestrians in groups of as much as 10, dogs, edges that drop off several inches between path and grass, stupid corners that serve no purpose, metal barriers etc etc. I suppose you enjoy all those things too do you?

Fact 4: If you intend to cover any distance at all, you will, at some point, need to use the road. The network of bikepaths is not sufficiently advanced and never will be for one to commute any distance solely on bike paths. I intend to ride where I want to, not where it suits the council to build a path.

Fact 5: The most dangerous aspect about cycling on the road is intersections. There are no fewer of these on urban bike paths (with side streets), but even more where the path begins and ends (see fact 4).

Oh, but they are by comparison to the alternative. Think about it, most roads are already wide enough to mark a shoulder or bike lane, and those that don't generally have dirt shoulders. This process will always be cheaper than ripping up the ground and starting from scratch.

They are allocated no more administrative costs than other projects. However, they do require more lobbying for the reason I have outlined above, they are simply more difficult and costly to build.

And I will put that one with the political conspiracy theories that people use to argue about the helmet law in this country. The truth of the matter is that:

a) I am not going to vote for anybody that builds bike paths of the kind I have described, so they won't con anybody.

b) Cyclists are a decidedly small minority. Politicians have bigger votes to chase. I tend to think that the bike path movement is only aimed at attracting the "green" vote generally (not specifically cyclists) by claiming a commitment to "sustainable transport" without having to inconvenience the motorists (the majority). In fact, it's likely to make the motoring primate vote for them ("got all those damn bikes off the road").

The trouble with the bike path is that it requires repair more often than every five years. That is why they fall into the states I have described at the top of this message (fact 3, I believe). The other thing to realise here is, the road is there anyway. People are not going to stop driving on it because there is a bike path. It will still need the same repairs as it does now. The only difference is whether the cyclist rides on the road and gets the benefit of this repair work, or whether they ride on the path and don't. I know which I'm going to choose.

RetroLung

I can only go off what I have experienced in San Diego.

Fact: The 8 mile Bike path is allot on the silver strand in San Diego is much more enjoyable to ride then the east harbor route in which there is a bike route.

Fact: I have never received a flat on the silver strand route and have received two on Harbor Boulevard, which is the way back on the east harbor.

Fact: I have never been almost hit or flipped off on the bike path by a SUV. check this one out

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...&threadid=5157

According to Bicycling Magazine in San Diego "cyclist can count on at least $1 million a year from transportation tax." That is allot of dough to buy asphalt for paths. I don't imagine that when they fix a bike lane that they will ignore the pothole in the road. By the way what fund do you think they charge it to and have you ever seen the way people drive out here.

LittleBigMan

Look at the trends. How much space has been paved for motor vehicles? How much space has been paved for cycling/dog-walking?

Are you feeling like Geronimo, yet?

Chris L

Yes, it's almost identical to a gang-bashing in Brisbane a couple of years ago that occurred on the Southbank bike path. It could quite easily have happened anywhere. And your point is?

Yes it is. It is also a hell of a lot more dough to spend useful facilities like road shoulders (which, in my experience, are always safer and faster than bikepaths).

And that is exactly my point. Whether or not bikepaths are built, roads will always be maintained better, hence I will always ride on the road.

Who cares? My original point was that there is only ever going to be so many $ collected from taxes in total, and only so many of those spend on things that can be used by cyclists. I'm still yet to be convinced that bikepaths (glorified sidewalks/footpaths) are anything other than a total waste of these $ by comparison to on-road facilities and shoulders.

I am assuming from your posts that they can be reasonably expected to stay within the confines of the road (if you claim to be safe from them off the road). That means they must be more competent than those here. Still doesn't change much. Roads are always better constructed and infinitely safer than glorified footpaths.

Generic Rider

If you like them or not, I think we can all agree that there will never be bike paths everywhere, a cyclist will always have to use streets, at least to get to and from a path, if nothing else.

Most urban bike paths I've ridden on are usually along rivers or lakes (and below bridges) and only have 'intersections' every mile or two (or more). So, right off, there's less chance of conflict with cars. And less stopping means easier to maintain speed. Most do NOT ride along roads where you still have to stop at every intersection.

In riding bike trails in New York, Chicage, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Boston, Montrail, Toronto, Ottawa and several smaller cities and many rural trails, I don't recall seeing broken glass on a trail. I have ridden trails in areas that I didn't feel comfortable safty-wise. But I can say the same about streets.

A busy trail may slow me down, but that's not usually a problem. I'm enjoying riding and seeing others. I used to have problems with others when I felt I had to maintain my approx 15 mph speed. I would pass where I shouldn't have, push through people and make them uncomfortable. Now, I just slow down and wait, and ofter get 'thanks' from the others. I've found that most are 'self-preserving', and try not to cause conflicts also.

I still see a lot of hot-shot riders blowing along at maybe 17-20 mph, not slowing when they should, ofter not giving a vocal warning, actually endangering others, sometimes. This does NOT give cyclists a good reputation.

Of all the Trillion$ that have been spent on roads, I think the cyclinst/pedestrians are entitled to a few million. I believe the benefits outweight the costs, when you consider the health benefits to the commuter and recreation trail users.

So, I use the street when I have to, but just as soon ride an off-road trail.

Ken

wabbit

I'm all for more bike paths, but they have their limitations. They can get clogged with traffic OTHER thna cyclists- blders, pedestrians, and really slow people wobbling along on bikes at 3 miles an hour- especially on weekends and when the weather is nice. If you want to go at a decent speed, they are not the ideal; however, they do keep you off the road at places where the traffic is bad. Frankly, I think we need bike lanes like they have in Belgium and the Netherlands, not just in the city but on highways so that we can go wherever we want. Of course, that's an ideal world. Rub a lamp!

John E

Hi Retro,

If you have not already done so, please join SDCBC -- you could help us be even more effective.

Chris L

We can do so now. It's called the road. 86km this morning. That would have been a lot of circles on the glorified footpath.

LittleBigMan

It's obvious that there are many "types" of bikepaths out there.

But I can only speak from my own experience. In Atlanta, bike paths are designed for one function: so-called, "recreational cycling."

Yet, having said that, I must also say that any "recreational cyclist" that heads for the bike path has two options:

1) An exceedingly dangerous sidewalk with 10 times as many intersections as the adjacent road;

2) A remote, yet beautiful rail-bed bike path stretching from Smyrna, Ga. (Northwest Metro Atlanta) and [eventually] the Alabama state line.

In both cases, these "bike paths" are not useful for the commuter, as either they lead several miles out of the way or they lead nowhere useful in particular.

("Hey, guys, let's load our bikes into the SUV and head to the bike trail. Our wives can pick us up later in Alabama...")

Bikes = toys. (Not that I wouldn't enjoy the fun, but I don't work in Alabama...)

tourman

I guess it all comes down to where you live as to what type of bikepaths are available. In Ottawa for example there are 170 kms of pathways that interlink from all the suburbs running along the river and the canal. In most cases it is quicker to use the path than the road. Then we also have kms of rail to trail paths all over the province. These are not meant for serious commuting but however are good place for the recreational rider to spend time instead of on the road doing eratic things and giving the more serious rider a bad rep. Yes kids I believe there is room in the world for paths. Nobody forces you to use them but they are a great option especially if you are new to city. I would much rather ride the west side highway bike trail in Manhatten than ride on the road shared by 13 000 yellow taxis. Besides you all know that politicians will do whatever is popular at the moment. It goes with the name "poly " latin for many "tics" blood sucking creatures.
Just my two cents worth.:cool:

LittleBigMan

The bottom line is that in an urban setting, you can't have two
criss-crossing systems of paved roadways, one for cars and one for bikes. The result is madness, especially when the bike-system is designed by Mickey Mouse and Goofy.

If you accept such a system, that is, one that separates bikes from cars, you accept that bikes should not receive the same
treatment as cars: the convenience of operating your vehicle as safe, efficiently and quickly as possible from your home to your job, store, friend's house, or anywhere else you might want to go.

That's the logical argument against bike paths. Now here's the
real deal: the reason bikes are being separated from motor traffic onto paths is not because cyclists are screaming at politicians to do so. It is because planners have one objective in mind: streamline motor traffic, speed it up, add more lanes, accomodate more cars.

Bicycles are in the way. They slow down this utopian vision. The goal to building paths is the same goal Andrew Jackson had for the Native American population: get them the h*ll as far away from "us" as possible.

We all know where that lead to.

:thumbdown:

If this continues, we'll all be paying $5.00 per hour to ride our bikes in circles...indoors!

Palafo

I guess it depends on the bike path. In Manhattan, there's a nice one right along the river, it's a pleasant ride and often faster than riding in traffic. It gets crowded, but there are some fun spots to stop and look at the river and New Jersey. I think this path is a particularly good option for slowpokes, kids, families, roller bladers and the like. It's often the fastest way to ground zero.

The bike lanes on the streets in New York, however, are not always designed well -- they're often in the door zone. And trucks and even cops double park in them -- right before they ticket you for NOT using the separate lane. I tend to avoid streets with bike lanes.

There's another nice river path in Harrisburg, Pa., that takes you over car traffic. The peds are idiots but since the drivers act like they have never seen a bike on the road, it's a good option. There is not a lot of bike traffic so you have it to yourself, not counting the peds. To the south, in York, Pa., there's a nice trail along an old rail path -- it's countryside, quite nice. A mountain bike experience for roadies, I guess.

But some of the paths/lanes other posters have described do not sound like what I would be interested in -- but I would not deny them to others. It is a matter of taste and experience.

John E

There is a tenable middle ground. On local, traffic-calmed roads with low speed limits, we take the lane and mix in with traffic. On fast arterials, we do need wide curb lanes, continuous shoulders, or marked bike lanes (it probably does not matter which). At dangerous intersections, i.e., those with high-speed free merges, diverges, weaves, and turns, I welcome short, safe ("separate-but-equal") bypasses. Lawful vehicular cyclists, bicycle commuters, and car-free folk need to speak up to be heard over the casual cyclists who like the sport but are terrified of traffic and do not perceive the consequences of marginalization.