Advocacy & Safety - In praise of bike paths

Two weeks ago I started a new job so now I have a new commute.

My new commute takes me along surface street bike lanes to the Obern Trail bike path (Atascadero Creek bike path). It's awesome being able to ride this bike path every day. Here's why:

In the morning it's so cold and quiet. The trees along the creek have lost most of their leaves. There are ice crystals in the grass. Other cyclists are pedaling along silently. Kids are going to school on their bikes (not in Lexus SUVs and Hummers like Montecito on my old commute). People are out walking their dogs on the adjacent dirt path (people don't walk on this bike path). The air smells so good. Sometimes you can even smell bacon from the houses backed up to the path.

At night, despite the solar-powered lights, the bike path is really dark and quiet. A lot of cyclists turn off their headlights to enjoy the darkness. I've seen mice and frogs on the bike path at night. It's so quiet you can hear eerie sounds. It's so dark you can see the stars in the sky. You can smell people's fires burning and dinners cooking. When other cyclists pass me they do it so silently they barely raise their voices to say hello so as not to disturb the silence.

I've never seen so many cyclists of so many ages commuting to work and school. The kids sometimes ride with their parents. At night there are more cyclists than I would ever have expected.

I believe that if there were more bike paths like this there would definitely be more cyclists. At my new job (which is only a quarter mile from the Obern Trail) I have seen more bikes parked in offices and locked to the racks than I ever did at my old job.

Being trained to tolerate traffic is not the same as the pure joy of two daily excursions out in quiet nature. Most places have creeks and rivers tucked away out of sight. That's where Santa Barbara has put its bikeways. I think other places could do the same and thus provide more alternatives for people who would like to leave the car at home.

How many of you roll up your window to keep out the noise and pollution when you drive? Riding in the street is like never being able to roll up the window. Riding on the bike path is like never having to roll up your window.

yep, well designed and supported bike facilites encourage bicycling as transportation and recreation.

sounds nice, Diane. My commute takes me up a mix of accomodations and unaccomodated four lane roads where drivers like to honk and 'educate' me out their open windows. Not that I have any problems with that except temporary irritation, but your commute sounds much nicer than mine or Noisebeam's down in Arizona.

Well designed bike facilites, of all stripe and pave, worked into a community make communities more bikeable by more people. it's as simple as 2+2. The positive effects of bike accomodations can be seen in cities around the world.

Bogota, Amsterdam, London, Portland, Victoria, Vancouver, etc......

Glad to hear your new commute environment is so pleasant. Mine's not bad compared to some, but yours sounds almost pastoral, in an urban environment.

I've been the only person on my 5 miles of MUP for many months
at 3:00am when I get off work early it's a real experience

I agree – particularly the If-you-build-it-they-will-come idea. I use a MUP frequently at night and absolutely love it. The only thing I don’t get is how you ride in complete darkness without a light. I would be off the path and into a tree.:eek:

If you are going to segregate, segregate.

MUP's along rivers and RR right of ways can be very helpful. The main problems with many urban bike lanes is that they often put cyclists in the wrong place on the lane at intersections and they lead to banning cyclists from the rest of the road (except under circumstances that satisfy non-cyclists).

An MUP that goes along a river or an RR ROW can go for miles without an intersection, and they are far enough from roadways that they don't lead to roadway use bans. One problem is that there are only so many rivers and RR ROW's and they are not always placed conveniently.

There's an MUP that I can take to work if I'm willing to go out of my way. It goes along a river. It's great when the weather is bad to mediocre, but it becomes useless for efficient tranportstion on the nicest spring, summer and fall afternoons. Also, it isn't plowed, so it gets covered with unridable icy ruts in some conditions. That's a problem that you westerners don't face with stiped lanes and MUP's--snow removal. Your governments can just stipe or pave and forget. To keep midwestern facilities clear takes an ongoing maintenance commitment that many local governments aren't willing to undertake.

Note: I edited this substantively before I saw any responses, but Bek's post immediately after this may have been responding to an earlier version.

DC, on-road bike facilities are NOT 'segregation'. off road paths are preferrential off road facilties, not damnable 'segregation' despite the dictionary definition, that word suggests forced seperation.

MUP riders voluntarily choose a MUP when riding.

Just stop with the loaded semantics. All cyclists, when riding to or leaving a MUP to ride to their desitinations, retake the roads.

I just said that some segregation can be good, so I don't think I was using the term negatively.

But contrary to what you said, the segregation of striped lanes is forced. If I ride to the left of a debris-free bike lane in Portland because I think the bike lane was poorly designed and placed, I will eventually get a ticket and I will lose any court fight. I do not have the choice to voluntarily ride in the bike lane. I am required to ride in the lane except under circumstances that non-cyclists deem appropriate.

That's one reason MUP's can be helpful additions to roadways. Unlike striped lanes, they generally don't result in any loss of the right to use the traffic lanes.

I just said that some segregation can be good, so I don't think I was using the term negatively.

But contrary to waht you said, the segregation of striped lanes is forced. If I ride to the left of a debris-free bike lane in Portland because I think the bike lane was poorly designed and placed, I will eventually get a ticket and I will lose any court fight. I do not have the choice to voluntarily ride in the bike lane. I am required to ride in the lane except under circumstances that non-cyclists deem appropriate.

That's one reason MUP's can be helpful additions to roadways. Unlike striped lanes, they generally don't result in any loss of the right to use the traffic lanes.

In over 40 years, I have NEVER gotten a ticket for not being in a bike lane. Have you?

But, I believe the OP was about Bike Paths, not Bike Lanes...so why sidetrack yet another thread into the same old BL BS? I love a nice ride on a nice path and I truly believe that far less people would be riding at all if they didn't exist and THAT would be a far bigger threat to our right to ride on the road than any BL.

In over 40 years, I have NEVER gotten a ticket for not being in a bike lane. Have you?

But, I believe the OP was about Bike Paths, not Bike Lanes...so why sidetrack yet another thread into the same old BL BS? I love a nice ride on a nice path and I truly believe that far less people would be riding at all if they didn't exist and THAT would be a far bigger threat to our right to ride on the road than any BL.
The OP said that MUP's were helpful in comparison to street riding. I agreed. I also said that they did not come with the disadvantages of striped bike lanes. That's still on topic.

But to answer your question (which you claim is off topic), I have not been ticketed for not riding in a bike lane. I have either avoided the Columbus roads with bike lanes because they are poorly designed (Shrock Road) or because I have had no need to ride them (Morse Road). I plan on riding over to Morse Road to try that one. That's 45-55 mph multi-lane road, and I want to see how the lanes work. When they crack down on cyclists in Portland, they go after cyclists not in the bike lane. In previous threads, I have pointed to an Oregon court decision on that point as well as articles about cyclists getting tickets for not riding in the lane.

You and Bek have kept the up the discussion about analogies between MUP's and striped lanes. I won't come back to the subject in this thread if no one else does.

allright, but's lets say 'seperate' instead of 'segregate', because that term implies 'with force' and 'against individual will.'

As this is Diane's thread, she comments seperate paths are nice, but when a rider gets closet to their destinations on a path or seperate trail,

the riders retake the roads.

paths and trails help riders navigate the greater Puget Sound basin with speed and expediency, and when they need to leave the path, the rider retakes to the roads.

Denver also seems to have a very effective path network. And Minneapolis. When riders there need to leave the path, to ride to a destination not served on the path, the riders are entirely free to do so.

I don't believe I specifically mentioned any bike lanes, but mentioned facilities in their entirety, DC.....

I don't believe I specifically mentioned any bike lanes, but mentioned facilities in their entirety, DC.....
"bike facilites, of all stripe and pave"
"on-road bike facilities "

Once again, the same people blaming someone else for their own inability to stay on topic.

on-road bike facilities are not just bike lanes, good sir. Regional bike facilities, of ALL stripe and pave, are exactly that. DC began damning the lane....

let's try to stay on topic. let's think nice bike paths. seperate but all riders are free to leave them at any time. riders retake to the roads when close to their destination.

Puget Sound bicyclists of all abilities and riding styles are served by a path network here. Denver, Minneapolis as well, and sounds like Diane is too!

Enjoy your new path commute, Diane. it sounds real nice!

A lot of cyclists turn off their headlights to enjoy the darkness.

Am I the only one who thinks this is a bad idea?

"Your governments can just stipe or pave and forget."

Not exactly. The bike path I mentioned was closed for the first week of my new job because they had recently removed roots, repaved and resurfaced it. But the resurfacing was not satisfactory so they were resurfacing it again. It's still not very good, but I think we'll probably have to live with it. At least it's not really bad and the bumps are gone.

How do you ride in the dark? I think it's pretty hard to do, personally, but if I turn off my front light the bike path solar-powered lights are dim enough to feel like darkness. My eyes adjust, and then when I hit this one residential street that lacks any lights, it's almost like being in pure darkness. I swore I was being passed by a ghost a couple of times until I realized it was just a manhole with some running water inside.

I'm just amazed at all the riders, even at night in the dark. People will choose bicycling over driving if they have a choice that makes riding preferable to driving. That means preferable against all the nice things about driving, not just self-righteously preferable based on one's political views or something like that.

People will choose bicycling over driving if they have a choice that makes riding preferable to driving. That means preferable against all the nice things about driving, not just self-righteously preferable based on one's political views or something like that.

This is one of those simple observations that has a lot of truth to it in my opinion. And once they've begun to experience that pleasure of riding it's amazing the extremes that they'll eventually go to to sustain it. For proof just read the commuting threads as people describe riding in 0F with blustery winds. I mean there has to be something beyond politics and "saving the planet" that's a motivating factor here.

Sounds like a nice ride, Diane. I wish you could have posted some pics. Your area is so beautiful.

The Rivertrail in Lansing is also quite nice. It's totally separated for its entire length of, I believe, 13 miles. It follows the Red Cedar and Grand Rivers diagonally across the city grid from southeast to northwest, with a couple spurs. I use it often as part of a utility ride or recreational ride. Most often I have to go much slower on the trail than I would on the road, but that's not always a bad thing--sometimes I like to ride slow and enjoy the scenery. I do tend to avoid the trail on nice weekends because it gets too crowded, and some weekend users--both cyclists and walkers--are not very skilled or careful. As Bek pointed out, you cannot do the entire trip on the trail--you start and finish on the regular streets.

So the Rivertrail is useful because it actually serves destinations that people want to go to, therefore, it can be considered part of the transportation system. The majority of trails, however, go from nowhere to nowhere, and they don't do much good for "serious" cyclists (Hi ILTB ;)). They're wonderful recreational facilities, but funding for them should be from the parks budget, not from the transportation budget.

on-road bike facilities are not just bike lanes, good sir. Regional bike facilities, of ALL stripe and pave, are exactly that. DC began damning the lane....

let's try to stay on topic. let's think nice bike paths. seperate but all riders are free to leave them at any time. riders retake to the roads when close to their destination.

Puget Sound bicyclists of all abilities and riding styles are served by a path network here. Denver, Minneapolis as well, and sounds like Diane is too!

Enjoy your new path commute, Diane. it sounds real nice!
Do you actually believe what you write?

It's awesome being able to ride this bike path every day. Here's why:

Glad to hear your new commute environment is so pleasant. Mine's not bad compared to some, but yours sounds almost pastoral, in an urban environment.

Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya!
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya!
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya!
O Lord, kumbaya!
Someone’s laughing, Lord, kumbaya!
Someone’s laughing, Lord, kumbaya!
Someone’s laughing, Lord, kumbaya!
O Lord, kumbaya!
Someone’s crying, Lord, kumbaya!
Someone’s crying, Lord, kumbaya!
Someone’s crying, Lord, kumbaya!
O Lord, kumbaya!
Someone’s praying, Lord, kumbaya!
Someone’s praying, Lord, kumbaya!
Someone’s praying, Lord, kumbaya!
O Lord, kumbaya!
Someone’s singing, Lord, kumbaya!
Someone’s singing, Lord, kumbaya!
Someone’s singing, Lord, kumbaya!
O Lord, kumbaya!
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya!
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya!
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya!
O Lord, kumbaya!


-D

Um, yes, DC.

wide outside lanes, signage, sharrows and bike lanes are on road facilities.

bikes are free to leave paths and continue to their destinations on the roads.

riders, transportational, recreational and other, are served by path networks in cities like denver, Seattle, Minneapolis, and Diane now too! Riders across Puget Sound, daily transportational riders, use path networks to their advantage to transit the greater Puget Sound Basin.

What do YOU not understand, Daily commute?

On my bike path I can go faster than on the roads. There is nothing to stop me putting my head down and hauling a$$. The bike path IS a major transportation corridor in my town. It serves two of the major employers and leads to or is part of a network of paths that serve several major business parks and shopping districts. In fact, if you want to get to any of these major destinations by bicycle, you would be a fool not to use the network of paths. It would take you much longer to get there otherwise.

With the political will of bike advocates, actual bicycle transportation corridors can be built.

They're wonderful recreational facilities, but funding for them should be from the parks budget, not from the transportation budget.
This argument is a favorite Red Herring of the the VC anti facilities gang. Are you that concerned about the funding of roads that lead to vacation spots like ski resorts (think Aspen) , casinos, parks, lake and ocean front resorts, stadium complexes, golf courses ? How about the airports at Las Vegas or Orlando or Vail or Jackson Hole?

Your concern about proper funding sources is as transparent as can be. There are pennies (if that) available in parks budgets compared to transportation funding. Are you claiming that current funding sources are not legal? Yes? What makes you think so? No? So what is the basis of your "concern"?

Just another tired anti-bike facility ploy from a Forester acolyte.

This argument is a favorite Red Herring of the the VC anti facilities gang. Are you that concerned about the funding of roads that lead to vacation spots like ski resorts (think Aspen) , casinos, parks, lake and ocean front resorts, stadium complexes, golf courses ? How about the airports at Las Vegas or Orlando or Vail or Jackson Hole?

Your concern about proper funding sources is as transparent as can be. There are pennies (if that) available in parks budgets compared to transportation funding. Are you claiming that current funding sources are not legal? Yes? What makes you think so? No? So what is the basis of your "concern"?

Just another tired anti-bike facility ploy from a Forester acolyte.


Actually, while I generally like your rebuttle and I too feel that paths should be part of a transportation network... bear in mind that Roody actually stated that the main trail that went from location to location was useful, while only trails that went nowhere should be considered recreational and should therefore funded by the parks.


The majority of trails, however, go from nowhere to nowhere, and they don't do much good for "serious" cyclists (Hi ILTB ). They're wonderful recreational facilities...

we have a network of similar paths in my area. most of them are a beautiful, scenic recreational ride, and I actually use them for this purpose a lot, but here are the problems with them:

1. lack of maintenance. lots of root bumps and other crap like that. plus for some reason the bridge crossings were designed with a huge bump at either side. this is a definite barrier to any kind of decent speed. our useless public works department chafes at maintaining the ROADS here, I am not expecting them to touch the bike paths anytime soon.

2. crime. one of the paths has become a notorious gang haunt, and none of them are usable after dark, especially given the fact that they are "closed" and therefore not patrolled after the sun goes down. my area is too crime-ridden for a secluded bike path in the woods (which is essentially what all of these paths are) to be usable to all.

3. the paths are narrow and winding, and filled with other users during peak hours. this is also another barrier to their use for commuting at any kind of decent pace. MNCPPC's brochures on the trail network even say "cyclists wishing to commute at over 12 miles per hour should find alternate routes"

This argument is a favorite Red Herring of the the VC anti facilities gang. Are you that concerned about the funding of roads that lead to vacation spots like ski resorts (think Aspen) , casinos, parks, lake and ocean front resorts, stadium complexes, golf courses ? How about the airports at Las Vegas or Orlando or Vail or Jackson Hole?

Your concern about proper funding sources is as transparent as can be. There are pennies (if that) available in parks budgets compared to transportation funding. Are you claiming that current funding sources are not legal? Yes? What makes you think so? No? So what is the basis of your "concern"?

Just another tired anti-bike facility ploy from a Forester acolyte.
:rolleyes: You couldn't be wronger. Well probly you could.

First off, bear in mind that my post, which you selectively semi-quoted, was written in support of bike trails--both recreational and transportation trails. But the two types of trails are very different from each other (even though some, like the Rivertrail here, do serve both functions).

Why would you spend transit dollars on a public park? Mainly to fool people into thinking that you are doing something for "alternative transportation" when actually you are only benefiting the lycra clad road warriors, who typically drive to a trailhead, ride two wobbly miles, eat a power bar in the middle of the trail, then turn around and wobble back to their SUVs.

Although, as you say, transportation budgets are immense, the amounts earmarked for bicycles are pitifully small. But those "pennies for bikes" are often wasted on trails that go from nowhere to nowhere, while the politicians crow that rail trails and the like are "alternative transportation." I'm tired of politicians who trick us into using public transit funds to benefit a small minority of campaign contributors. Use transit money for buses and bicycle transportation. Finance rail trails and other recreational facilities with recreation funds.

Actually, while I generally like your rebuttle and I too feel that paths should be part of a transportation network... bear in mind that Roody actually stated that the main trail that went from location to location was useful, while only trails that went nowhere should be considered recreational and should therefore funded by the parks.
"Nowhere" for Roody may be somewhere for others. A lot of people with a dogmatic agenda might consider that traveling to Disneyland or Las Vegas or Vail or Myrtle Beach Golf Resorts are trips to "nowhere" destinations for anyone interested in a "useful" location.

Again, his concern over funding sources is a dang ploy to throw a stumbling block in the way of something he opposes on idealogical grounds.

At night, despite the solar-powered lights, the bike path is really dark and quiet. A lot of cyclists turn off their headlights to enjoy the darkness. I've seen mice and frogs on the bike path at night. It's so quiet you can hear eerie sounds. It's so dark you can see the stars in the sky. You can smell people's fires burning and dinners cooking. When other cyclists pass me they do it so silently they barely raise their voices to say hello so as not to disturb the silence.
This sounds like a lot of my early morning comute to work on these rural highways. Except that not many people are up that early, and even fewer out and about. Some mornings I don't get passed by any cars in an almost eight mile commute. On nights when the moon is bright and there are no cars around, coming from either direction, I'll turn my headlights off and ride in the moonlight.:)

we have a network of similar paths in my area. most of them are a beautiful, scenic recreational ride, and I actually use them for this purpose a lot, but here are the problems with them:

1. lack of maintenance. lots of root bumps and other crap like that. plus for some reason the bridge crossings were designed with a huge bump at either side. this is a definite barrier to any kind of decent speed. our useless public works department chafes at maintaining the ROADS here, I am not expecting them to touch the bike paths anytime soon.

2. crime. one of the paths has become a notorious gang haunt, and none of them are usable after dark, especially given the fact that they are "closed" and therefore not patrolled after the sun goes down. my area is too crime-ridden for a secluded bike path in the woods (which is essentially what all of these paths are) to be usable to all.

3. the paths are narrow and winding, and filled with other users during peak hours. this is also another barrier to their use for commuting at any kind of decent pace. MNCPPC's brochures on the trail network even say "cyclists wishing to commute at over 12 miles per hour should find alternate routes"

+1

Our trails stink (I know of which you speak). But from what I have gleaned from Diane etc is that there are several differences.

1. According to Diane, her paths are actually BIKE paths. Not MUP's like ours. I assume this makes things a bit better as she doesn't have to dodge joggers, inline skaters, etc.

2. Our trails are part of the park system. That is a big negative in 2 ways. First it is closed after dark. And it doesn't get plowed.


-D

Two weeks ago I started a new job so now I have a new commute.

My new commute takes me along surface street bike lanes to the Obern Trail bike path (Atascadero Creek bike path). It's awesome being able to ride this bike path every day. Here's why:

In the morning it's so cold and quiet. The trees along the creek have lost most of their leaves. There are ice crystals in the grass. Other cyclists are pedaling along silently. Kids are going to school on their bikes (not in Lexus SUVs and Hummers like Montecito on my old commute). People are out walking their dogs on the adjacent dirt path (people don't walk on this bike path). The air smells so good. Sometimes you can even smell bacon from the houses backed up to the path.

At night, despite the solar-powered lights, the bike path is really dark and quiet. A lot of cyclists turn off their headlights to enjoy the darkness. I've seen mice and frogs on the bike path at night. It's so quiet you can hear eerie sounds. It's so dark you can see the stars in the sky. You can smell people's fires burning and dinners cooking. When other cyclists pass me they do it so silently they barely raise their voices to say hello so as not to disturb the silence.

I've never seen so many cyclists of so many ages commuting to work and school. The kids sometimes ride with their parents. At night there are more cyclists than I would ever have expected.

I believe that if there were more bike paths like this there would definitely be more cyclists. At my new job (which is only a quarter mile from the Obern Trail) I have seen more bikes parked in offices and locked to the racks than I ever did at my old job.

Being trained to tolerate traffic is not the same as the pure joy of two daily excursions out in quiet nature. Most places have creeks and rivers tucked away out of sight. That's where Santa Barbara has put its bikeways. I think other places could do the same and thus provide more alternatives for people who would like to leave the car at home.

How many of you roll up your window to keep out the noise and pollution when you drive? Riding in the street is like never being able to roll up the window. Riding on the bike path is like never having to roll up your window.
I strongly support segregated cycle facilities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities) that are bike paths such as the one you describe, for many of the reasons you cite.

I agree with Roody that the bike paths that serve transportational purposes, like the one that you describe, are appropriate to be funded with transportational dollars.

Further, I think it's important that such paths be built to certain standards, including the right of injured cyclists to sue whoever is in charge of maintaining a path for damages caused by maintenance negligence (just as we can sue whoever is in charge of maintaining a road or sidewalk or damages caused by maintenance negligence). I bring this up because, at least in CA, the courts currently are treating paved bike paths like "wilderness paths" for which nobody is held responsible for maintaining.

In other words, if your path collapses underneath you on your ride to work, and the collapse is shown to have been caused by negligent maintenance, you can't sue anyone for your damages and lost time at your new job. This is partially why bike path maintenance probably tends to get less priority than roads and sidewalks.

I agree with Roody that the bike paths that serve transportational purposes, like the one that you describe, are appropriate to be funded with transportational dollars.
What Roody and/or Helmet Head think is/is not the "appropriate" source of funding for bike paths means DiddlySquat.

"Nowhere" for Roody may be somewhere for others. A lot of people with a dogmatic agenda might consider that traveling to Disneyland or Las Vegas or Vail or Myrtle Beach Golf Resorts are trips to "nowhere" destinations for anyone interested in a "useful" location.

Again, his concern over funding sources is a dang ploy to throw a stumbling block in the way of something he opposes on idealogical grounds.
I hope we're all smart enough to distinguish the I-5 freeway and Disney Way as part of the transportational system that gets us to the park, and the monorail that is not, even though it is used for transportational purposes within the park.

Given his clearly stated support for transportational bike paths to be supported by transportational funds, and his support for recreational paths within parks that do not serve transportational purposes for anyone outside of the park with park/recreational funds (that's how I understand his position), I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that he opposes paths on ideological grounds.

And John Forester, who has spent tens of thousands of dollars of his own money recently, to support the legal cause of having bike paths surfaces and physical support maintained to the same standards as roads and sidewalks, is hardly acting like someone who opposes paths on ideological grounds either.

What Roody and/or Helmet Head think is/is not the "appropriate" source of funding for bike paths means DiddlySquat.
What I-Like-To-Bike thinks is/is not the "appropriate" source of funding for bike paths means DiddlySquat.

Hope that helps. :rolleyes:

What Roody and/or Helmet Head think is/is not the "appropriate" source of funding for bike paths means DiddlySquat.
Glad you're keeping up your usual high standards of argument. But I thought that my opinions had some validity, since I'm a tax-paying and voting citizen. I was mistaken?

I don't think you have an opinion on this topic; at least you haven't expressed one.

I can only speak from my own experience here: I love my MUP. It is the most pleasant part of my commute. It is far and away what keeps me on the bike as transportation. I lengthen my commute by almost 2 miles each direction just to use this path. It cuts almost two dozen traffic lights out of my commute. It has caused problems but in my analysis far less than the hassels caused by endless stops and starts and countless intersections with impatient drivers.

In short: I use it for the same reason motorists will choose to go a few miles out of their way to get on a freeway for a couple of exits on the way to work. It saves time, hassels, energy, brake pads, and nerves. In my view they should be planned for and funded as freeways for the people who choose to bike. As for where that money should come from: The city takes a fair piece of my pie why not use some of that. As if it would cost anywhere near what the constant expansion projects I see on the freeways around the city cost me.

. . . 2. crime. one of the paths has become a notorious gang haunt, and none of them are usable after dark, especially given the fact that they are "closed" and therefore not patrolled after the sun goes down. my area is too crime-ridden for a secluded bike path in the woods (which is essentially what all of these paths are) to be usable to all. . . .
This is a potential problem we have. Ex sex offenders have a hard time finding places to live, so they often end up homeless. And at least on of our bike paths run along extensive homeless camps. If you're worried about crime riding at night, a dark MUP is much more dangerous than a well-lit street

I can only speak from my own experience here: I love my MUP. It is the most pleasant part of my commute. It is far and away what keeps me on the bike as transportation. I lengthen my commute by almost 2 miles each direction just to use this path. It cuts almost two dozen traffic lights out of my commute. It has caused problems but in my analysis far less than the hassels caused by endless stops and starts and countless intersections with impatient drivers.

In short: I use it for the same reason motorists will choose to go a few miles out of their way to get on a freeway for a couple of exits on the way to work. It saves time, hassels, energy, brake pads, and nerves. In my view they should be planned for and funded as freeways for the people who choose to bike. As for where that money should come from: The city takes a fair piece of my pie why not use some of that. As if it would cost anywhere near what the constant expansion projects I see on the freeways around the city cost me.
I agree, but sometimes I ride on the path for the opposite reason. I want to slow down, de-stress, and enjoy the scenery. Just like some motorists will get off the crowded freeway and take the scenic route, even if it takes a few minutes longer.

...at least in CA, the courts currently are treating paved bike paths like "wilderness paths" for which nobody is held responsible for maintaining.

Strictly side note here... refering specifically to a larger issue regarding the attitude of the state and the ensuing treatment of cyclists.

Yet again California shows an attitude that is anti-bicycle by their "wilderness paths" treatment of paths. This is quite consistent with their "human powered device" definition of bicycles per CVC, along with their poor treatment of roads that are otherwise well defined as bike routes in other states... specifically hiway 101 as it enters the "golden state" up north.

Notice any pattern here?

I can only speak from my own experience here: I love my MUP. It is the most pleasant part of my commute. It is far and away what keeps me on the bike as transportation. I lengthen my commute by almost 2 miles each direction just to use this path. It cuts almost two dozen traffic lights out of my commute. It has caused problems but in my analysis far less than the hassels caused by endless stops and starts and countless intersections with impatient drivers.

In short: I use it for the same reason motorists will choose to go a few miles out of their way to get on a freeway for a couple of exits on the way to work. It saves time, hassels, energy, brake pads, and nerves. In my view they should be planned for and funded as freeways for the people who choose to bike. As for where that money should come from: The city takes a fair piece of my pie why not use some of that. As if it would cost anywhere near what the constant expansion projects I see on the freeways around the city cost me.


BINGO!!! :beer: :beer: :beer:

I agree, but sometimes I ride on the path for the opposite reason. I want to slow down, de-stress, and enjoy the scenery. Just like some motorists will get off the crowded freeway and take the scenic route, even if it takes a few minutes longer.

Can you explain "de-stress?" or a need to do so on an isolated path?

Is it more stressful to ride in traffic on the street?

Glad you're keeping up your usual high standards of argument. But I thought that my opinions had some validity, since I'm a tax-paying and voting citizen. I was mistaken?

I don't think you have an opinion on this topic; at least you haven't expressed one.


Does he generally.

Based off extensive observation I have come up with the following about ILTB. Cut and pasted from my other post:

"Don't mind ILTB. From what I have gleaned here and on other forums, ILTB fills the bikeforums.net role of contrarian. He often seems to post just to be contrary to whatever subject is being talked about.

If you ignore him, he won't go away unfortunately. But on the plus side his posts can be ignored without affecting the outcome of the discussion at hand."

The path I ride on is not an MUP, it is not a "wilderness trail". It is a transportation corridor serving bicycle traffic.

When there are road closures on the path, they put up Road Closed signs and send emails out and put notices in the news papers about the closure. They do regular maintenance to the asphalt as well as brushing to keep the weeds and thorns down. They treat this as a road, with as much seriousness and consideration as a road.

This is not a path designed for recreation, for de-stressing or for taking it slow, although you can do all those things on it if you wish just like you can go for a Sunday drive on any other road. The path is designed for speedy and safe travel, with little cross traffic, with many off-ramps to local streets marked with the name of the street, with solar-powered street lamps for night-time safety, with intersections to other similar paths clearly labled with the name of the path and mileages to other paths.

With the political will and decent bike advocacy, decent bikeways like this CAN be built. When decent bikeways exist, people use them. How did I realize the bike path was open again after the resurfacing (seeing as how I don't subscribe to the paper anymore and didn't keep up with my email)? There were no more cyclists on the surface street I was riding as an alternative. I went over to the path and there they were.

People like bike paths. People use bike paths. Bike paths are a good thing.

People like bike paths. People use bike paths. Bike paths are a good thing.

And it seems that so far everyone here agrees, including those darn VC acolytes. Yet we are almost to page 3 of posts. Gotta love A&S

-D

Can you explain "de-stress?" or a need to do so on an isolated path?

Is it more stressful to ride in traffic on the street?

Yes, please do explain "de-stress" and the relationship of stress to traffic.

Ever have a doctor tell you to find ways to reduce stress in your life wherever you can? Ever know anybody whose doctor said that?

HH, It seems we aren't anywhere near as far apart on a lot of issues as I had thought! This is exactly the type of infrastructure I'd like to see.:D I'd like to see some separate "Commuter and Utility" paths set up here in Lafayette and am currently in an uphill battle with the city government. Basically, I've gotten it to the stage where they are saying "Yes, but....". It's progress though, now that they've figured out that I'm not going to go away and quit bugging them.

On another note, does anybody have any ammunition I can use to get the city to actively look into federal funding of Utility paths along some of the more dangerous roads for Cyclists, such as the Indiana 38 corridor?


I strongly support segregated cycle facilities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities) that are bike paths such as the one you describe, for many of the reasons you cite.

I agree with Roody that the bike paths that serve transportational purposes, like the one that you describe, are appropriate to be funded with transportational dollars.

Further, I think it's important that such paths be built to certain standards, including the right of injured cyclists to sue whoever is in charge of maintaining a path for damages caused by maintenance negligence (just as we can sue whoever is in charge of maintaining a road or sidewalk or damages caused by maintenance negligence). I bring this up because, at least in CA, the courts currently are treating paved bike paths like "wilderness paths" for which nobody is held responsible for maintaining.

In other words, if your path collapses underneath you on your ride to work, and the collapse is shown to have been caused by negligent maintenance, you can't sue anyone for your damages and lost time at your new job. This is partially why bike path maintenance probably tends to get less priority than roads and sidewalks.

But I thought that my opinions had some validity,
Opinion -Yes.
Validity of the facts about funding - None.
Parroting the party line of spouting zero validity opinions as statements of fact; but maybe someone will believe 'em. - Right On, Brother Roody, HH approves!

Strictly side note here... refering specifically to a larger issue regarding the attitude of the state and the ensuing treatment of cyclists.

Yet again California shows an attitude that is anti-bicycle by their "wilderness paths" treatment of paths. This is quite consistent with their "human powered device" definition of bicycles per CVC, along with their poor treatment of roads that are otherwise well defined as bike routes in other states... specifically hiway 101 as it enters the "golden state" up north.

Notice any pattern here?
Isn't the path described by sbhikes also in California? Funny how the local experiences within the state are so different. Is this due to the local advocacy efforts or what?

Oh boy, now we gotta make sure there's somebody to sue just in case craters spontaneously form before we can support bike paths. That really takes the cake!

Yes, please do explain "de-stress" and the relationship of stress to traffic.

Ever have a doctor tell you to find ways to reduce stress in your life wherever you can? Ever know anybody whose doctor said that?
Please remember that stress is a subjective experience. For me, stress levels in ascending order are:
Bike path with low traffic
City street with low traffic
City street with high traffic
Bike path with high traffic--the most stressful condition of all, judging by the number of times I bite my tongue to refrain from yelling at others.

... including the right of injured cyclists to sue whoever is in charge of maintaining a path for damages caused by maintenance negligence (just as we can sue whoever is in charge of maintaining a road or sidewalk or damages caused by maintenance negligence).
You sure about that "right to sue" and better yet, collect damages from government agencies for liability??

Care to name the cases of cyclists who successfully sued any government agency (AKA "whoever is in charge") for alleged maintenance "negligence" on a public highway?

And for what type of negligence did those alleged cycling plaintiffs successful sue the government? Too many acorns, pine needles or leaves; a pothole; snowy conditions, or what? Or maybe you are just repeating ONE MORE VC fairy tale in order to blow VC smoke?

Opinion -Yes.
Validity of the facts about funding - None.
Parroting the party line of spouting zero validity opinions as statements of fact; but maybe someone will believe 'em. - Right On, Brother Roody, HH approves!

Ah yes, the "you're wrong because I said so" argument. So why should we believe you any more than Roody?

-D