I read too much, all I'm going to say about that.
It is a bit long
when I'm out riding in rural areas, I find that most motorists are headed to the convenience store to buy cigarettes and lottery tickets. If anyone is going to unilaterally stay off the roads, it should be them. Cyclists staying off the roads is a notion I reject, and if the author was here I probably would have to restrain myself from abusing him.
oh, he sounds pretty reasonable except for his fear of traffic. But, that's normal, US traffic is horrendous. But, so's the title of his piece.
His finishing paragraph is pretty even handed, though.
I wonder if he wrote it for his local chamber of commerce website?Originally Posted by matt funnicello
I totally disagree with the premise the author presents here; as an avid cyclist, I am very aware of other cyclists on the road when I am driving, and make all efforts to ensure that those cyclists feel that I am sharing space freely with them.The idea that my relatively slow-moving 225 pounds of bike and rider could ever effectively “share” insufficient space with a 4,000 pound vehicle is probably folly from the get-go regardless of how careful or courteous either party may be. I don’t know how you are when driving a car. I know how I am. I’m in my shell. I’m in the Batmobile. I’m already feeling isolated and empowered and restricted all at the same time.
My point is that it’s not really about “us” versus “them” when it comes to cars and bikes. Most of us who cycle also drive cars. We’re all “them” if we’re honest about it. So, while a cyclist may well be able to put themselves in a driver’s shoes, it’s far less likely that a driver can or will put themselves in a cyclist’s shoes. I highly doubt that we are going to fix this problem with public safety campaigns, good intent and pleas for good behavior. As I see it, asking a cyclist and a driver to share the road is like asking fish and cats to just get along. We truly don’t understand each other and one of us is fully capable of rendering the other dead in a very quick and one-sided manner. We might truly live best in totally separate elements.
As a frequent passenger in the cars of others', I also make an effort to ensure that the driver is aware of cyclists on the road and treat those cyclists well. Frankly, it takes so little effort for a motorist to "enable" a cyclist, that it is shameful that fellow humans cannot manage to be a touch more altrustic toward human powered vehicles that pollute less, require less foreign oils, and leave more open parking spaces available for those that chose to use motorized transport.
The amount of effort required to drive is scant by comparison to the effort to propel one's self at decent speed on a pedal bike, such that motorists should feel no burden in sharing the road; it is only selfishness that often causes the conflict that some motorists feel with regard to "sharing the road" with fellow humans who chose to use pedalbikes.
i've found in bicycling advocacy that, to win over the motoring public, you have to think like the motorists. Prattling on and on about 'road rights' isn't the tactic to getting a broad base of support for safer bicycling conditions.
This author's going about it without an understanding of road rights and equality, which compromises his argument, but the general public really doesn't get that cyclists have the right to take the lane doing 10mph in front of traffic wanting to do 40.
And when you're trying to sell road improvements to motorists that benefit cycling, you don't start going all
or they tune you out.
Framing arguments for better conditions for cycling with those types of 'road rights' metrics makes people tune out the message, and even get antagonistic towards cyclists.
we're a collective of 'obscenely clothed, unhelmeted miscreants' , dontchyknow?
Last edited by Bekologist; 05-30-13 at 03:34 AM.
Meh. He's got a lot of fear in him. I ride almost all of my miles on rural roads with zero shoulder and I don't have any problems at all.
Work: the 8 hours that separates bike rides.
Here's the important part: "I have been in only one crash and it was caused by unattended pedestrian children on a bike path and my own desperate desire to avoid them as they blocked said path entirely." I avoid urban streets and will put my bike on the back of my car to ride a few miles out of the city into rural areas where there is little or no shoulder on the roads, and have had really no issues at all. It's on the MUPs, where I also occassionally ride where the danger is; unleashed dogs and children running amok and causing havoc!
An article written by someone that does not understand their right to the road & the concept of taking the lane; sounds like just another motorist who occasionally cycles for recreation.
I have a hard time imagining crashing because of children on a mup. Just shows the author's inexperience. No wonder he's afraid to ride on the road.
* The "$65,000" per mile for the Warren bike route might be misleading. It's probably much, much higher than that for the separate bicycle parts and much, much less for the bike-lane-on-road parts.
* Most of the cost of building the GAP was provided by the rail road company who built the original railway the pat uses.
* Most of the cost of building the C&O path was provided by the canal company.
* How many former railways/canal routes are available to make into transportationally-useful bike paths?
* Glens Falls/Queensbury, NY are mostly suburban spawl (not exactly "rural").
There's a long, established history of restricting/limiting access to active railways. It doesn't seem that it's likely that would change any time soon.
Note that, with the former railways, the paths use the railbed, which has already been nicely graded for a path (that would be extra work needed for paths in the margins of the right-of-way).