Advocacy & Safety - BF bike lane critics riding wrong equipment

The recent thread "To be VC means riding in the bike lanes" was an informative and useful look at bicycle accomodations.

Seems there are many bicyclists that post frequently to Bike Forums that have chosen "the right tools for the job" by riding sensible commuting bikes. Bikes that can roll over pine needles, tiny cracks in the pavement, grit and the like without too much issue.

And, it seems very interesting to me that some of the most outspoken critics of bike lanes ride bikes that have tires considered by many bike forum commuters as impractical and too skinny for everyday commuting.

To complain about minimal road grit, miniscule cracks in the pavement, and pine needles is childish and selfish. These outspoken critics of bike lanes sound like they want to be part of a privledged class of citizens.

I'm reminded of people in their low slung 'high performance' cars getting upset their cars scrape bottom rolling into parking garages and on hills, speed bumps and the like.

If people in cars scrape bottom going over speed bumps, should municipalities get rid of speed bumps to accomodate people driving inappropriate cars?

Should a municipality get rid of bike lanes because some deluded, maybe not so experienced bicyclists seem to think skinny tired road bikes give them carte blance to expect perfectly smooth pavement and prompt removal of pine needles?

Kids in souped up rice burners don't get unlimited speed limits, Hummer owners don't get superfat parking spots, rich yuppies in low slung autobahn sedans don't get adequate road clearance, and bicyclists don't get ultrasmooth pavement.

to the bicyclists here that think, because the bike shops sell skinny tires, that you can ride them everywhere, get with the program. What kind of delusional thinking is that? Some things sold at bike shops are NOT very appropriate choices for real world bikes, why think that they would be? Marketing?

Real world riding requires real world bike choices. In any endeavor, if you choose innapropriate equipment, the blame is on your shoulders. Not the conditions. Think of Admundsen and Scott in their race for the South Pole. One had the right equipment for the endeavor and flourished, one chose inappropriate equipment and perished within sight of his next food cache.

This is not about the bike lanes. It's about selfish bikers 'demanding' their bikes are good enough for road conditions, then complaining when they realize they really aren't.

To the bicyclists in bike forums that childlishly complain that they ride the wrong type of bike to take advantage of typical roadway conditions, GROW UP! The world does not revolve around you picking the wrong bike for the job.

To all the bicyclists here in Bike Forums that have the wisdom to make their own correct choices about equipment for real world biking, I salute you.

Another way to look at the issue is that some experienced cyclists who have been riding typical road bikes for decades have begun to encounter new road designs that create inferior roadway conditions in those areas where bicyclists are expected to ride. These cyclists consider the roadway design to be deficient compared to earlier conditions.

Road bikes with fairly narrow wheels have been around for over 100 years. They grew tremendously in popularity for use by the general population in the 1960s through the early 1980s, due to improvements in technology and lower cost (and better roads) but became unfashionable with the general recreational and urban utility cycling population when the mountain biking fad hit. Road bikes have enjoyed a resurgence in popularity in recent years as the mountain biking fad has leveled out. A growing number of hybrid bikes using flat or upright bars for higher body posture and narrow wheels for faster acceleration, lower drag and lighter weight have become popular for recreational and commuting cyclists, as have similar models with wider tires, which are most popular with cyclist who do a combination of on and off road cycling.

Roadway edgeline striping was invented many decades ago to make the edges of non-curbed roadways more visible when driving at night, particularly on high-speed highways. Wide paved shoulders often were added beyond the edgelines to provide a safety margin for motorists should their wheels cross the edgeline. These paved shoulders also improved conditions for emergency parking, snow removal, and pedestrian travel outside of the travel lane. Cyclists found that they could also use these shoulders to travel outside the path of motor traffic in the travel lane. However, these shoulders often accumulated more debris, including broken glass, metal, sand, and gravel compared to the ordinary roadway surface, and were sometimes designed or paved at inferiour quality compared to the travel lane. However, cyclists were still permitted to operate in either the travel lane or the shoulder, and in areas with debris accumulation would often ride near the line.

Bicycle lanes were invented in nations with high volumes of bicycle traffic as a means to constrain bicyclists to a subsection of the roadway and thus improve convenience for motorists. In some places, increases in bicycle transportation have generated projects to widen the roadway and place additional pavement outside the ordinary travel lanes, making it easier for motorists to pass bicyclists at a wide margin. In other places, bicycle lane striping has been added to existing wide lanes on curb and gutter roadways to narrow the area used by motor traffic and create a defacto shoulder before the curb. These bicycle lanes are marked with stencils denoting that bicyclists are expected to ride in them, and laws were sometimes passed to require cyclists to use them. Debris accumulated in the bike lanes exactly as in the paved shoulders. The difference, however, was that the paved shoulders did not carry the legal requirement or label that cyclists must use them. In some cases, such as where they replaced unmarked wide lanes, the debris accumulation was much greater than it had been before the markings were added.

Many of the experienced road bike users considered the addition of striping to existing wide pavement to be of no benefit to them, since there had already been plenty of space for motorists to pass safely and conveniently. This was especially true on the low-speed low-volume roads that were often the first choices for bike lane striping. When the road bike users operated outside of the newly accumulated debris, outside of the explicitly designated bicycle zone, they received backlash from some motorists and some other bicyclists. These road bicyclists then concluded that in at least some locations, the operational and social disadvantages of the added stripes significantly outweighed their disadvantages.

However, when the road bicyclists pointed this out, the bicycle segregation proponents criticized the road bicyclists, claiming that they needed to use less energy efficient bicycle equipment designed for off-road or mixed on-road/off-road use. The road bicyclists disagreed, pointing out that roadway pavement had steadily improved over the years everywhere they rode, except for the addition of the edgeline striping to previously wide pavement.

So, should the efficiency of the typical road bike wheel to be sacrificed in favor of keeping cyclists on separate facilities from other road traffic, particularly when the separated facilities are employed quite uselessly on low-volume low-speed streets? Or, should the focus be on improving pavement quality and safety for cyclists, especially those who ride a large percentage of the miles traveled by bicycle?

What are you, some kind of communist? Don't you know if is every americans god given right and duty to ride down the road on a 700x20c 140 gram tire? sheesh next thing we know you will be saying bike racks on buses are a good idea!

Steve, this isn't about bike lanes, its about equipment.

Are you skiing to the pole with Admundsen, or trudging with Scott?

'pick the right tool for the job'

Would you say the same thing to shbikes, who rides a trike? She argues for bike lanes because she perceives that riding in traffic is more difficult for her than riding in a bike lane.

And I thought people wanted bike lanes because they didn't "feel safe" riding in traffic and were unwilling to bother to learn. You could easily turn your argument around--if you want to ride on the road, learn how to ride on the road. Don't force state and local governments to eliminate part of the road and dedicate it solely to you.

And to people who claim they need a special needs lane on a 25 mph road, I say, Grow up! Join the adult world and learn how to ride in traffic. And if you're a kid, I say stay off roads you aren't skilled enough to ride on. If you aren't skilled enough to ride on a given road without a bike lane, you aren't skilled enough to ride on it with a bike lane.

[If the sarcasm in this post bothers you, I was only trying to match the tone the OP wanted for this thread.]

The issue isn't just how skinny the tires are. A rider can ride through the pine needles and cracks on 20 mm tires at 6 mph. The issue also is about speed. Riders on high performance bikes riding at 20 mph are more imperiled by crappy road conditions than someone on their WalMart bike tooling along at 10 mph. I don't think high speed riders/commuters shouldbe expected to ride at thalf their normal speed because the conditions in the bike lanes are unacceptable.

Imagine if our city streets were in such bad shape that no one could drive more than 15 mph. The cagers would go mad with frustration and start lynchng people. The point of advocacy, it seems to me, is to demand the same level of facilities that evreyone else who uses are roads can expect.

The issue isn't just how skinny the tires are. A rider can ride through the pine needles and cracks on 20 mm tires at 6 mph. The issue also is about speed. Riders on high performance bikes riding at 20 mph are more imperiled by crappy road conditions than someone on their WalMart bike tooling along at 10 mph. I don't think high speed riders/commuters shouldbe expected to ride at thalf their normal speed because the conditions in the bike lanes are unacceptable.

Imagine if our city streets were in such bad shape that no one could drive more than 15 mph. The cagers would go mad with frustration and start lynchng people. The point of advocacy, it seems to me, is to demand the same level of facilities that evreyone else who uses are roads can expect.


Cars don't have to worry about pine needles or small debris.

Who's selfish? The people demanding that every road have parts of it exclusively set aside for cyclists? Or the cyclists who are willing to share existing roads with drivers?

All we ask is that if the city chooses to force us off the road into special-needs lanes, that the city properly maintain the special needs lanes. If the city doesn't want to maintain the special needs lanes at least as well as the normal traffic lanes, fine, just don't complain when we choose to ride in the normal traffic lanes.

Is it really all that bizarre to want to ride a road bike on the road?

Is it really all that bizarre to want to ride a road bike on the road?


Is it realistic to expect to need wider than 20mm tires to counter normal road debris?

Is it realistic to expect to need wider than 20mm tires to counter normal road debris?


My opinion on that is, YES, if you don't want to complain about it while fixing a lot of flats :D

Is it really all that bizarre to want to ride a road bike on the road?

if you pick a poorly equipped 'road bike', then YES. Maybe skinny tire advocates would be better off on completely seperate MUP's that are smooth and free of road debris. Like a bike path. You could race moms in strollers.

My road bike has 37c tires on it and I drop race club training groups on it all the time. It isn't slow by any stretch of the imagination. I Love it when I pass a group of kitted up skinnies, they work 20 minutes pulling me back in, then comment on how hard it is to catch up.

So, yes, daily, it is bizarre if your choice of 'road' bike doesn't let you handle cracks in the pavement or pine needles.

In the bike lane or out. This thread isn't about the bike lanes, it's about choosing the right tools for the job, and crybabys that refuse to recognize 'road' bikes sold at shops are good for little except getting lots of flats.


All the skinny tired apologists should take a closer look at their equipment and gripe a little less about road conditions.

Like SBikes mentioned in another thread, regarding skinny tired bikes that can't ride over a little grit,

remind me never to purchase anything so useless.

My opinion on that is, YES, if you don't want to complain about it while fixing a lot of flats :D


I fell because I couldn't handle a few pieces of gravel...FASCISTS!!!

Bicycle lanes were invented in nations with high volumes of bicycle traffic as a means to constrain bicyclists to a subsection of the roadway and thus improve convenience for motorists. In some places, increases in bicycle transportation have generated projects to widen the roadway and place additional pavement outside the ordinary travel lanes, making it easier for motorists to pass bicyclists at a wide margin. In other places, bicycle lane striping has been added to existing wide lanes on curb and gutter roadways to narrow the area used by motor traffic and create a defacto shoulder before the curb. These bicycle lanes are marked with stencils denoting that bicyclists are expected to ride in them, and laws were sometimes passed to require cyclists to use them. Debris accumulated in the bike lanes exactly as in the paved shoulders. The difference, however, was that the paved shoulders did not carry the legal requirement or label that cyclists must use them. In some cases, such as where they replaced unmarked wide lanes, the debris accumulation was much greater than it had been before the markings were added.


Can someone put all these cliches about bike myths in a wiki somewhere, so we can be spared the lengthy conspiracy theory posts every time bike lanes are mentioned in a thread?

I ride 23's through anything year round, though anything in the part of the road I'm using. If you can't do it without sustaining damage or losing control it isn't the fault of the road conditions. Not that I let the powers that be off the hook for providing a suitable surface or anything, just saying, ride equiped for the road it's on, not the ideals of the road it's on.

The point isn't what type of bike you ride, it's how well the bike lanes are cleaned and maintained relative to the other lanes. I walk in sensile shoes, and I ride on sensible tires. I agree that it's foolish to use any equipment that is unsuitable for the real world conditions. I use a mountain bike or commuting, with 1.25 inch slicks in the summer, and 2 inch studded tires in the winter. Does that meet with your approval Bekologist? O great guru of commuter bikes?

Now, the bike lanes here (the few that exist) are filled with debris all year. In the winter they are not even plowed, in fact, the snow is plowed onto the bike lanes, so they contain 6 to 18 inches of ice, slush, salt, gravel, glass, branches, etc. So while you're telling us we don't know how to slect equipment, please give the city a call and order them to clean the bike lanes here.

A lot of people, including Sheldon Brown, think that knobby tires provide less traction on hard pavement because less rubber is in contact with the road. But I guess Bek would know more about that than the rest of us!

Funny how you people beg for more bike lanes, it's too hard to ride in the street, but you don't care if they're rideable or not.

A lot of people, including Sheldon Brown, think that knobby tires provide less traction on hard pavement because less rubber is in contact with the road. But I guess Bek would know more about that than the rest of us!




Roody..knobbies are superior in very loose surface conditions, loose gravel especially.

Bekologist I have to say you are as bad the cagers putting down all cyclist.

You say the right equipment I say your wrong. Why is it wrong for us to expect the city/state to maintain the bike path at least as well as the main road? (separate but equal my @$$)

I will say I ride 700x23 on my bikes I do not know where you get off saying all skinny tire rides need to use big fat 37c tire (you mtb rodie wannabe... I say this with the up most love).

I am less annoyed by the natural debris then the glass and other trash that ends up in the bike lane from cagers and peds and other inconsiderate cyclist.


Now go ride your bike.... and use the bike lane or the main road... and enjoy the ride.

Roody..knobbies are superior in very loose surface conditions, loose gravel especially.
But knobbies are not best on clean pavement?

So does this mean that no one tire is perfect for all road conditions encountered by a cyclist? And does it follow that proper cleaning and maintenence of bike lanes, which are not swept by fast vehicles, is essential if they are to be safely used by cyclists? If you have clean pavement, will you select a different tire than you would if you prefer to ride in dirty bike lanes?

Let's bring it back to the practical level:

What tires do you all think are best for the conditions typically encountered by commuters? What are some special circumstances that you take into account when you select tires for your own commute?

something along the lines of a 1.5 armadillo tire

Should municipalities get rid of speed bumps?
Yes. They are a hazard to motorists and impede first-responder vehicles.



Should a municipality get rid of bike lanes?
Yes.

something along the lines of a 1.5 armadillo tire
Sounds good. I don't need the armadillo because I don't have bike lanes with flat-causing debris. I have clean pavement but potholes are a major problem. I have the fat studded tires in the winter when potholes are worse. The rest of the year I do well with inexpensive slicks, 1.25 or 1.5.

Another way to look at the issue is that some experienced cyclists who have been riding typical road bikes for decades have begun to encounter new road designs that create inferior roadway conditions in those areas where bicyclists are expected to ride. These cyclists consider the roadway design to be deficient compared to earlier conditions...
Many of the experienced road bike users considered the addition of striping to existing wide pavement to be of no benefit to them, since there had already been plenty of space for motorists to pass safely and conveniently...
However, when the road bicyclists pointed this out...The road bicyclists disagreed...and safety for cyclists, especially those who ride a large percentage of the miles traveled by bicycle?
And WHO the heck are these "experienced high mileage road cyclists"? Who says that their "large percentage of the miles traveled" means a dang thing to anybody but them? In fact, who measured the percentage of miles ridden by which type of cyclists? What percentage of cyclists qualify as "experienced high mileage road cyclists"?

And since when and why do alleged miles run up on club riders' weekend jaunts mean a dang thing to other cyclists or decision makers? When did the needs of the majority of cyclists become secondary and subservient to the demands of the precious and mysterious cult of the "experienced high mileage road cyclists?


And please NO extrapolations from Planet Cary NC to the rest of the world!

My opinion on that is, YES, if you don't want to complain about it while fixing a lot of flats :D

I haven't had a puncture flat on any of my road bikes in over 14 years. That flat was on a paved shoulder.

Part of the reason why I have so few flats is I stay out of debris that is outside the area swept by cars. This includes staying outside of bike lanes in many situations.

You say that this thread isn't about bike lanes, but you put bike lane in the thread title.

People who like using lightweight high-pressure road tires at high speeds are naturally more debris-averse than people riding thick-tread low-pressure tires at low speeds.

If one cares more about getting somewhere faster by bike, the perceived problem is debris. If someone cares most about putting a stripe between them and other vehicular traffic, the perceived problem might be the tires. I belong to the former category.

I haven't had a puncture flat on any of my road bikes in over 14 years. .


<yawn> anecdotal

I ride 23's through anything year round, though anything in the part of the road I'm using. If you can't do it without sustaining damage or losing control it isn't the fault of the road conditions. Not that I let the powers that be off the hook for providing a suitable surface or anything, just saying, ride equiped for the road it's on, not the ideals of the road it's on.

yeah that's exactly it. if you feel the need to ride 35mm tires all year that's your right. I ride 25-23mm tires all year except when there is an accumaltion of snow because it is definately faster. If you feel you need to ride bigger tires than that's cool too, but i if that is the case i would consider discussing the road conditions with city hall. I have been to several american cities (and even in the rich suburbs) where the roads are just horrendous and i think that it is really shortsighted to let a piece of infrasctructure that EVERYONE uses fall to pieces like that. and really i dont know why this discussion should be limited to tires. how about having to get your wheels trued on a monthly basis, even when you are using high spoke count touring rims?

And WHO the heck are these "experienced high mileage road cyclists"? Who says that their "large percentage of the miles traveled" means a dang thing to anybody but them? In fact, who measured the percentage of miles ridden by which type of cyclists? What percentage of cyclists qualify as "experienced high mileage road cyclists"?

And since when and why do alleged miles run up on club riders' weekend jaunts mean a dang thing to other cyclists or decision makers? When did the needs of the majority of cyclists become secondary and subservient to the demands of the precious and mysterious cult of the "experienced high mileage road cyclists?

And please NO extrapolations from Planet Cary NC to the rest of the world!

Stanley, I'm friends with a lot of people who ride road bikes, probably more than you, given the tone of your post. Most of these people are bike commuters, others are recreational cyclists. Some of us pull our kids around in trailers on weekends, others buy groceries on our bikes.

So, if we are riding downhill with our kid and some groceries in the Burley trailer behind us, and the bike lane is full of sand, we ride outside the bike lane, because skidding on the sand would have serious consequences.

Plenty of people in Cary NC have pointed out to me that if I don't want to worry about the sand in the bike lane, I should drive a car. But does anyone here think that kind of argument is constructive? No, poking fun at another person's travel mode rarely generates progress. Different modes have different advantages and disadvantages.

I suggest that the cyclist picks the equipment that works best for him overall, and if that means he has to ride outside of a debris-filled bike lane now and then, that right should be supported.

Let's take this line of reasoning a little further. Say there's potholes and cracks in the bike lane. Rather than leave the bike lane, should you have to ride a full suspension bike on the road?

Gimme a break! It's not about the bike (it's not about experienced road cyclists, either, like there aren't enough labels flying around as it is.)

There is no correct or incorrect type of bike.

It's not unreasonable to ride a road bike on the road - that's what it's for, hence the name.

It's also not unreasonable to want decent roads.



This is not about the bike lanes.
I think it is. The discussion in the other thread was about a road where the addition of a BL stripe decreased the width of clean pavement. The stripe made things worse for cyclists. Blaming that on equipment choice is lame.

I'm gonna keep riding my road bike, thank you very much.

What other thread? you mean ALL the other threads, where a couple of 'elitist' skinny tired roadies complain about microscopic cracks in the pavement?

or the threads where practical 'real world' bikers give the impractical bikers a hard time for choosing the wrong equipment?

I just got back from a ride. and I'm going back out.

and this is not about the bike lane, its about choosing
"the right tool for the job."

for those of you who complain about a few pine needles, bully on you.

for the bicyclists choosing the right tool for the job, I salute you.

Bek, you telling other cyclists that they're choosing the wrong bike is a lot like others in this forum who are fond of telling cyclists that they don't know how to ride.

In the photos referred to, there was no debris in the car lanes. The debris in the bike lanes did not appear to have been swept there by passing cars (it wasn't crushed). One of the pictures had "a few pine needles" which probably wouldn't bother anyone, but some of the others had those little round things, presumably with stickers (couldn't tell from photos). Those could flatten a bike pretty quick.

Is it unreasonable to ask the government to maintain the same level of cleanliness for the bike lanes, since they are the ones putting the unnecessary and artificial restriction on bikes? If the lanes had been only half as well maintained as the regular road they would be perfect.

Keeping the lanes free of pebbles and glass is also in the interest of motorists, if they only knew. Bike tires rolling over small objects frequently turn them into projectiles.

Bek, you telling other cyclists that they're choosing the wrong bike is a lot like others in this forum who are fond of telling cyclists that they don't know how to ride.

+1

I'm friends with a lot of people who ride road bikes, probably more than you, given the tone of your post. Most of these people are bike commuters, others are recreational cyclists. Some of us pull our kids around in trailers on weekends, others buy groceries on our bikes.
So is that the answer to whom are the "experienced high mileage road cyclists"? Your friends? And should the desires of this relative handful of cyclists dictate cycling policy for all of the cycling population of Cary NC and the world beyond, because of their "influential" accumulation of weekend miles? What makes you and your "high mileage" friends so dang special besides your own opinion of your/their importance in the overall scheme of cycling?

I don't give a dang what kind of equipment you and your pals use, nor do I care what part of the road you/they choose to ride. My objection is to your arrogant and pompous attitude that your/their alleged high mile count buys you extra votes for influencing cycling policies. And the conceit that one of your pals logging 100 miles on a weekend century ride is worth a 100 children cycling a mile to school or their friends' home.

This is a complex issue with no 'one' answer. Governments don't put in bike lanes for the heck of it. They do it because some group asks for it over and over again. That group is usually comprised of cyclists. You can tout your conspiracies about motorists trying to put them in to segregate bikes from traffic, but that makes no sense to me. Unless you live in a place where bicycles are ubiquitous on roads, the average motorist doesn't care 3 minutes after they pass you.

Like it or not, bikes are a minority on the roads by farrrrrrr. If your local government put bike lanes in, consider yourself fortunate. If they maintain the lanes (which accommodate less than 1% of their consituents probably) to the same standard as the rest of the roads, consider it a miracle. Junk gravitates toward the side of the road anyway. It would actually take a much greater effort to actively maintain them than it takes for the rest of the road. Good luck getting that to be a budget priority Mr. John Q <1% of the tax base.

So to sum up, we, as a small special interest group, requested the lanes, we got them, we want to have the option to use the middle of the road if there is even a minor disparity in the conditions, and that doesn't make us selfish. Life would be so much easier if we could all just coexist on the roads. Unfortunately, courtesy from motorists and cyclists alike seems to be in short supply.

Again, this is all about equipment, not about a few lines on the pavement, and how elitist machinery makes some road users complain unduly so about the conditions for their ill conceived choice of vehicles.


In the woodyard, the workshop, or riding a bike,

"choose the right tool for the job."

If anyone thinks this is me putting down riders who complain about marginal amounts of debris or minimal cracks in the pavement impacting the quality of their bicycling, so be it. It's probably because they're 'wearing black tie to the barnyard.' save the race tires for race day, buds.

This is all my personal opinion. I'm a commuting antisnob with a penchant for practicality, I guess.

Back out, going for ride #3 for the day.

In the photos referred to, there was no debris in the car lanes.

Well, yeah ....... Do you suppose that's because the motorists who use those lanes bring enough horsepower along to blow the debris off? Yes ...... they sweep it themselves. They not only sweep the road, but they also pay road use tax to finance the maintenance of those lanes.

As a bike rider ........ what is it that you contribute??? Besides a lot of whining ......

Maybe you guys should get all your "friends" together and run out and pick up a couple a' new street sweepers. You could donate them to the road maintenance department that you are charging with the responsibility for keeping your lane clean. Don't forget to throw in enough money for a couple guys wages and benefits to run your machines while you're at it.

I do agree with one point though. Those lanes probably would be cleaner if the city had just left the bike stripe off.

Seems there are many bicyclists that post frequently to Bike Forums that have chosen "the right tools for the job" by riding sensible commuting bikes. Bikes that can roll over pine needles, tiny cracks in the pavement, grit and the like without too much issue.


This is rich!!! You guys actually talk about choosing different tires for different types of road? I think my Jamis Quest has more mud on it than most mountain bikes in this city.

Come on guys man/woman up and ride over those obsticals!!!! :lol: :lol: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Can someone cross post this in mtb? I am sure they would get a kick out of this.

I ride through bike lane grit daily that would make you vc weenies cry, and never once has it caused a problem. Who would even think of living (not riding, actual living) with a bike that can be defeated by a pine needle?

Come to think, why are we wasting our time talking about this? If you have fat tires and want to ride through the debris, fine with me. If I'm riding a skinny tire bike and want to move away from the debris, why does anyone have a problem with that?

i don't have any problems, I'm just being critical.

I was just out racing cars on my road bike for an hour and a half, and I tell ya, the confidence of moderately fat slicks adds a LOT to the quality of the experience.

Adds to the ability to surmount marginal road conditions in the main travel lanes with complete aplomb.

If a municipality is going to build special lanes specifically for bicycles, it's not expecting too much to expect the municipality to maintain the bike lanes to be as free of debris as all other vehicle lanes. If they don't do this, then their whole reason for building the bike lanes in the first place is just a bunch of political BS and a waste of tax dollars.

If a municipality does install bike lanes and doesn't follow up with the proper maintenance there is no reason for any cyclist to not use the right most motor vehicle lane.

The type of bike that the cyclist chooses is irrelevant.

They not only sweep the road, but they also pay road use tax to finance the maintenance of those lanes.

As a bike rider ........ what is it that you contribute??? Besides a lot of whining ......

Maybe you guys should get all your "friends" together and run out and pick up a couple a' new street sweepers. You could donate them to the road maintenance department that you are charging with the responsibility for keeping your lane clean. Don't forget to throw in enough money for a couple guys wages and benefits to run your machines while you're at it.

.

As has been pointed out and linked to many times on here before, "road use" taxes and fees don't pay for all the roads, or the maintenance, and the people that lean on the shovels doing that maintenance, some funds come from the general fund, which people that own bicycles pay into. So yes, we HAVE paid for those roads. Many cyclists also own motor vehicles, so WE also pay for the roads. Bicycles don't do ANY damage to those very same roads, like the motor vehicles in question.

Would you say the same thing to shbikes, who rides a trike? She argues for bike lanes because she perceives that riding in traffic is more difficult for her than riding in a bike lane.

And I thought people wanted bike lanes because they didn't "feel safe" riding in traffic and were unwilling to bother to learn. You could easily turn your argument around--if you want to ride on the road, learn how to ride on the road. Don't force state and local governments to eliminate part of the road and dedicate it solely to you.

And to people who claim they need a special needs lane on a 25 mph road, I say, Grow up! Join the adult world and learn how to ride in traffic. And if you're a kid, I say stay off roads you aren't skilled enough to ride on. If you aren't skilled enough to ride on a given road without a bike lane, you aren't skilled enough to ride on it with a bike lane.

What??

I ride in traffic as much as all of you. I turn left from the left turn lane and flip off my fair share of angry drivers waiting behind me as I grind my way slowly up hills. I also grumble my fair share at fellow riders who prefer the sidewalk or who refuse to take the lane when it's appropriate to do so.

I argue for bike lanes because I want to see more cyclists. I want there to be so many cyclists people think it's crazy to drve anywhere.

I also argue for more bikeways because I love being able to get across town fast. It removes a lot of the arguments against biking and for driving. If you can get there in a reasonable amount of time bike bike, and do it in a pleasant environment, not full of diesel fumes, then it's like paradise to be a bike commuter.

I also argue against all you bike lane haters because all your arguments just don't hold water with the experience I and most people I know have had using them. I have no problems using them. I've learned how to use bike lanes. Just like learning to ride in traffic takes some skills, so does learning to use bike lanes. You all just want to believe you are somehow superior to regular cyclists, somehow. Maybe more fearless because you eschew bike facilities of any kind, or maybe you just want to prove you have more testosterone, more machismo. I don't know. It is completely illogical the way a lot of you feel about bike lanes.

AND...I am well aware that my tiny little trike has some serious deficiencies. It really does need good pavement for optimal performance. It cannot ride over typical parking lot speed bumps without hitting bottom. I struggle very much with rampant potholes or steel plates or serious obstacles--anything over 3 or 4 inches in height. Furthermore, I understand I'm difficult for some people to see. So I use a flag and any kind of visibiltiy enhancement I can find. I take extra care when pulling out because not only am I hard to see, it's sometimes hard for ME to see.

BUT...I don't make a fuss about eliminating on-street parking so I can see better, or removing speed bumps so I can travel easier through parking lots, or fixing every pothole so I can have better pavement, or removing bike lanes so I can feel superior to others who prefer to use them. I understand my limitations and deal with them. I understand others' limitations and allow for them. I can see things from anothers' point of view. Most of you seem incapable of that. "Stay off the roads until you can mingle with 18-wheelers and crazed SUV drivers with cellphones changing diapers with one hand in the front seat! Real bike riders can do that!" Give me a break! Give me a bikeway away from these fools! Let them all crash into each other! Let them crash into you. I want to live.

Anyway, don't be thinking you know where I'm coming from because you don't. I also ride a recumbent bicycle and a mountain bike. The mountain bike almost equally with the trike. Go ahead and be apologists for the oil-sucking auto-dominant car culture. Go ahead and make life easier for them. Don't blame me when your obese children can't even walk to school.

I argue for bike lanes because I want to see more cyclists.
That's just like the stereotypical ARMY/NAVY/AIR FORCE commercials to get more recruits. Play heavy metal, show 18 y.o's having lots of fun shooting & blowing ***** up, and then say you can also get $$$ for college. Encouraging people to ride a bike by showing them unsafe and dangerous bike lanes won't make them permament cyclists, the same way kids who got the wrong impression about the military are looking to quit once their service is up.



I also argue against all you bike lane haters because all your arguments just don't hold water with the experience I and most people I know have had using them. I have no problems using them.
You need to live in the city to see how bad bike lanes are. The part of the road they are painted in are terrible. The left lane stripe is barely out of the door zone. Visibiity from driveways and parking lot exits are zero for both drivers and bicyclists since the parked SUVs block all view. Etc. LA and the surrounding suburbs have some bike lanes painted. If it is unsafe to ride on that part of the street - which is most of the time - I ignore them and ride in the rightmost lane.

Bike facilities actually add to the numbers of bicyclists, Mac. Maybe you need to try riding in a big city where there are well designed facilities before you dismiss them out of hand.


however, my original message in this thread was, some people ride bikes ill suited for riding typical roadway conditions.

I say once again, don't wear black tie to the barnyard.

i like to ride with the confidence of tires well suited for the job.

Why do all the skinny tired roadies always seem to be getting flats or talking about their spokes and wheels out of true on their rides?

What are you guys doing, starting a "side of the road club" where you stand around and watch your buddies in spandex play with latex? Is that kinky?

I think wherever you ride, you need the right tool for the job. If you commute where there are potholes, things called 'cracks in the pavement', or what is poignantly referred to as 'road debris', choose a little fatter tire and watch your misdirected complaints about marginal road conditions fade away.

And this driving with crazed soccer moms wielding coffee and a cellphone, that's an issue totally unrelated to either bike equipment OR bike facilities.

However, I pity the fools on 23c tires trying to ride their bikes around on average American roads. Seems like a bike ready to attack the typical potholes, etc, would be more appropriate. more functional. gosh darn it, maybe just work a lot better for

"Biking in the real world"

"Bicycles don't do ANY damage to those very same roads, like the motor vehicles in question."

Well, bikes may not damage the pavement, but it sure seems that they can add a fair amount of additional upkeep costs to a roadway. All that sweeping some of these people seem to think is necessary, isn't exactly inexpensive.

Lets see... best equipment...

Lets check out what the pros use. In Baltimore City, the "pros" - messengers - mostly ride fixed gear bikes, no brakes, thin high-pressure tires...

What do they know that you don't know Bek? (maybe how to ride?).

I bet those 'pros' don't wear helmets too but I won't fault them for that. You mean those riders I see running reds and riding on the sidewalks everywhere in downtown Seattle? those 'pros'?

Maybe they don't know how to maintain multispeed bikes and therefore they ride fixies because they are easier to deal with via neglect?

Deluding yourself as to my riding abilities is really a reflection of something deeper in yourself, Galen. I ride just fine. I bet the pros in baltimore don't get on BF and complain endlessly about the 'cracks in the roadways' and minimal amounts of 'road grit' that makes it tough for them to operate their 'road' bikes.

Here's an example of 'cracks in the bike lane' some of the 'roadies' posting in this thread were griping about in an A&S puzzler I posted recently....

. . .
Like it or not, bikes are a minority on the roads by farrrrrrr. If your local government put bike lanes in, consider yourself fortunate. If they maintain the lanes (which accommodate less than 1% of their consituents probably) to the same standard as the rest of the roads, consider it a miracle. Junk gravitates toward the side of the road anyway. It would actually take a much greater effort to actively maintain them than it takes for the rest of the road. Good luck getting that to be a budget priority Mr. John Q <1% of the tax base.

So to sum up, we, as a small special interest group, requested the lanes, we got them, we want to have the option to use the middle of the road if there is even a minor disparity in the conditions, and that doesn't make us selfish. Life would be so much easier if we could all just coexist on the roads. Unfortunately, courtesy from motorists and cyclists alike seems to be in short supply.

Come to think, why are we wasting our time talking about this? If you have fat tires and want to ride through the debris, fine with me. If I'm riding a skinny tire bike and want to move away from the debris, why does anyone have a problem with that?
Nicely said. Bek, it looks like you are the one in the minority on this one.

P.S. I ride 700x32 tires on a cyclocross bike.