Helmet Head, this one's for you.

[Brian]

I dare you to click this. (http://www.azcentral.com/community/ahwatukee/articles/0223ar-outcalt0223Z14.html)

I'm going to hell for this, I'm sure.

[UmneyDurak]

I dare you to click this. (http://www.azcentral.com/community/ahwatukee/articles/0223ar-outcalt0223Z14.html)

I'm going to hell for this, I'm sure.
You probably are. :D

[derath]

I have to say it is extremely telling that you, of all the board members here, would post this.

With all of the vitriol etc that has been going on in A&S lately, for a MOD to start up a thread that will likely become a flame fest (and I think you knew that all to well when you posted this), speaks volumes.

As to the article. What a load of bunk. I am not saying that we should abandon bike trail projects etc. They are nice, and they have their place. But signage is also important.

1. There are places where a trail could not feasibly be built
2. Projects such as these will take years, probably decades in some cases. In the meantime the signage on the road can't hurt.

The last paragraph is the most interesting.

For most of us, an occasional recreational ride would suffice. We could all use the exercise. But as long as we have to put our lives on the line to ride a bicycle and the only response to an obviously dangerous situation is signage, most of us will keep our bikes in the garage.

Funny, but I feel like I am putting my life on the line a whole lot more driving my car than riding my bike.

-D

[Brian]

I have to say it is extremely telling that you, of all the board members here, would post this.

With all of the vitriol etc that has been going on in A&S lately, for a MOD to start up a thread that will likely become a flame fest (and I think you knew that all to well when you posted this), speaks volumes.



Cut me some slack here. You guys will start the flame fest, not me. But if Helmet Head wants to make a difference, this is the kind of person that needs educating, not the readers of A&S.

[derath]

Cut me some slack here. You guys will start the flame fest, not me. But if Helmet Head wants to make a difference, this is the kind of person that needs educating, not the readers of A&S.

I would have cut you some slack, had you made an original post as intelligent as the sentance you just used here.

But you start a post with

I dare you to click this.

I'm going to hell for this, I'm sure.

With a subject calling out a specific member.

Flame bait.

-D

[Brian]

Your glass is half empty. Mine is half full.

[sbhikes]

I think the idea of a bike path completely separated from traffic and from intersections that would allow you to go downtown faster on a bike than in a car would be a great thing. They should build it. But not as an answer to people in cars killing people on bikes. People in cars kill all kinds of other people, not just cyclists. Plus they kill a lot of animals too.

By the way, the motorist who killed a local cyclist in town with his asphalt truck pleaded guilty to vehicular tresspassing and has to pay about $15,000 in fines and spend 45 days in jail. That's it. I'm not a fan of putting people in jail; I think our prison system is overly punitive. But how can you put a dollar figure on someone's life, either? I really don't know what to think anymore, except that maybe it's just too easy to kill someone by accident in our motor vehicle dominated society.

[N_C]

How the hell do you tresspass with a vehicle on a public roadway? Is that even possible? I thought tresspassing only happened when someone was on another person's property & they were not invited or expected, in a vehicle or otherwise. Never even heard of vehicular tresspassing until now.

[Scot_Gore]

I think the idea of a bike path completely separated from traffic and from intersections that would allow you to go downtown faster on a bike than in a car would be a great thing. They should build it.

We have one
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/76/CedarLakeTrail5.jpg

[Helmet Head]

The answer to motorists killing cyclists is not signage. It is to physically separate cars from bikes. How about some movement toward a meaningful and significant system of bike paths? Bike paths that do not force bicyclists to ride three feet from two-ton vehicles traveling 40 to 60 mph.
More and more people thinking like this guy is the natural and perfectly logical result of a culture that believes, and where cyclists themselves advocate, that cyclists should be riding in separated facilities from motor traffic whenever possible.

Accept this now and start doing everything and anything you can to reverse this trend, or wait until it's too late. Your choice.

[Daily Commute]

I think the idea of a bike path completely separated from traffic and from intersections that would allow you to go downtown faster on a bike than in a car would be a great thing. They should build it. . . .
It's the "and from intersections" part that's tricky. To do that, you generally need a path along a river or an old RR right of way.

Also, most of the facilties advocated in these forums would been of little help to the accident victim that spawned the op/ed. It is about a "local triathlete" who was killed while cycling. Very few MUP's or bike lanes are built for the kind of speed that athletes need to train.

[rando]

:rolleyes: But he's a professor! He must know what he's talking about!

[sbhikes]

I've never heard of vehicular tresspassing either.

And I don't believe we're in any danger of losing our rights to ride bicycles on roads any time soon. The plain fact is a good bikeway that allows you to get somewhere faster by bicycle than by car has a lot of potential to help the greater good. More people would be able to cycle because it would be faster than driving, so they would choose to ride, which would reduce congestion for the rest and help clean the air, produce less carbon dioxide, and build a larger force for cycling advocacy.

If anything, producing more cyclists would do more to dissuade loss of road access than trying to persuade people to do something they believe is too dangerous. 99% of the battle for people who would consider using cycling for transportation is just getting on the darn bicycle. Once on the bicycle, if they like it at all, most people will be willing to fight to maintain access to where they want to go.

[noisebeam]

A few notes:

The proposed 8'x3' share the road signs are indeed very large and being placed on Pecos (a 55mph divided two lane each way with a 10' shoulder) They will read "Share the Road - Bikes Get 3 Feet - Safe Passing Distance Is The LAW.":
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/0203phx-signs0203Z3.html
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/0207phx-triathlete0207Z3.html

The Triathete was killed crossing a freeway overpass - a driver exiting did not stop before turning right and hit the cyclist and wife: http://www.azcentral.com/community/ahwatukee/articles/1115ar-bikehit1115Z14.html

Here is a news history of the other 'high profile' cyclist death on Pecos:
http://azbikelaw.org/articles/anselmo.html

The idea of a path linking west Ahwatukee with Phoenix is a fine one. There is currently not a road connection see map (path to connect end of Pecos with 51st street: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=ahwatukee+az&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&z=13&ll=33.30729,-112.112217&spn=0.09856,0.214577&om=1&iwloc=addr A freeway is also being considered here.

Al

[San Rensho]

I think the idea of a bike path completely separated from traffic and from intersections that would allow you to go downtown faster on a bike than in a car would be a great thing. They should build it. But not as an answer to people in cars killing people on bikes. People in cars kill all kinds of other people, not just cyclists. Plus they kill a lot of animals too.

By the way, the motorist who killed a local cyclist in town with his asphalt truck pleaded guilty to vehicular tresspassing and has to pay about $15,000 in fines and spend 45 days in jail. That's it. I'm not a fan of putting people in jail; I think our prison system is overly punitive. But how can you put a dollar figure on someone's life, either? I really don't know what to think anymore, except that maybe it's just too easy to kill someone by accident in our motor vehicle dominated society.

Agree completely that good separate roads for bikes would be great. The problem that I see is that this would end up like segregation with the "separate but equal" concept, and as we know from the days of segregation, the facilities were not equal.

In practice, the bicycle facilities will always be vastly inferior to riding on the roads and will only be half hearted attempts.

[randya]

I though calling out another forum member in a thread title was against the rules. I'm sorry, but you should lose your moderator status for this, whatever your handle is (three changes in as many months, I believe). None of these are signs of a stable personality capable of moderation.

[Helmet Head]

I though calling out another forum member in a thread title was against the rules. I'm sorry, but you should lose your moderator status for this, whatever your handle is (three changes in as many months, I believe). None of these are signs of a stable personality capable of moderation. I, for one, am not aware of a forum rule that forbids using member names in thread titles.

If Brian's intent was to make me aware of this story, and to make anyone else who may have interests similar to mine aware of this story, which I believe was exactly the case, then the thread title seems perfectly appropriate.

I've had a few issues with Brian, but I don't think anything he has done, that I'm aware of, rises to the level of warranting him losing his moderator status.

By the way, publically implying that a forum member, a moderator no less, exhibits signs of an unstable personality, is arguably pushing the limits of the Respectfulness (http://www.bikeforums.net/faq.php?faq=general_principles#faq_respectfulness) and Harrassment (http://www.bikeforums.net/faq.php?faq=basic_guidelines#faq_harrassment) forum guidelines, if you ask me.

[LittleBigMan]

I have to say it is extremely telling that you, of all the board members here, would post this.

With all of the vitriol etc that has been going on in A&S lately, for a MOD to start up a thread that will likely become a flame fest (and I think you knew that all to well when you posted this), speaks volumes.
Derath, I thought you were being funny, like when Brian said he was going to hell. Of course, depending on the time of year, hell might actually be a little nicer than BF... :D

This quote from the article, "Many of us would like to structure some exercise back into our lives", explains the point of view pretty well. Here's someone who hasn't broken the ice, yet. Maybe bike paths are the full extent of his imagination, as of yet.

[LittleBigMan]

I dare you to click this.
Of course, you know I clicked it! :D

Trapped by my own impulsiveness.

[noisebeam]

Of course, you know I clicked it! :D

Trapped by my own impulsiveness.
I moused over it and noted it was to the local paper I scan every morning - clicked on it and realized I'd already read the article.

Al

[kemmer]

If anything, producing more cyclists would do more to dissuade loss of road access than trying to persuade people to do something they believe is too dangerous. 99% of the battle for people who would consider using cycling for transportation is just getting on the darn bicycle. Once on the bicycle, if they like it at all, most people will be willing to fight to maintain access to where they want to go.

Excellent point. More cyclists in general would result in more bikes on the roads even if there are more bike specific facilities. Many bike path users would find that as fitness and speed improved along with bike handling skills, they would begin to be more comfortable on the bike. This would allow them to become more comfortable riding on the road and they would find that more often than not, a bike path is often too slow either because they are too far out of the way, they meander along a river, the street crossings are too frequent and inconvenient, or they are too crowded. Many of these people would spend more and more time on the streets.

I don't think there's anything wrong with putting in more bike paths. I use them on a regular basis, for slow family rides and really nasty snow days. There times when I really don't want to have big metal boxes controled by people of questionable intellegence operating at high speed in close proximity. That doesn't mean I don't assert my rights as a road user.

The writer of the article is clearly clueless and needs a smack upside the head though. I'm tempted to write a letter or something.

[Brian]

I though calling out another forum member in a thread title was against the rules. I'm sorry, but you should lose your moderator status for this, whatever your handle is (three changes in as many months, I believe). None of these are signs of a stable personality capable of moderation.

Hey, thanks for your input. I read the article, and thought this would be a perfect opportunity for discussion. It just so happens that the writer's opinion falls at the opposite end of the spectrum from HH's, while everyone else seems to be somewhere in the middle of the road, if you will allow me a bad pun. And no flaming here so far.

As to my username, since I no longer live in a foreign country, Expatriate no longer seems appropriate, except perhaps for my Australian wife. That Forum Guy seemed to be an accurate title, but caused much confusion. So after a discussion with Joe, I stole the name Brian from a user that had not logged in for almost two years. I fail to see how that indicates an unstable personality.

Perhaps this thread can get back on topic now.

[JohnBrooking]

My two cents: I don't disagree with him and some of you here that separated bike paths with few intersections are nice, but at the same time, this sentiment worries me extremely:

The answer to motorists killing cyclists is not signage. It is to physically separate cars from bikes.
The logical conclusion to that line of thought is outlawing bikes from the road.

[JohnBrooking]

Anyone know who the triathlete mentioned in that article is? Another link on that page is to this article (http://www.azcentral.com/community/ahwatukee/articles/0224ar-villageplan0224Z14.html), about another cyclist's widow who has thrown herself into cycling education efforts. It also mentions "Triathlete George Esahak-Gage", who was "injured last year while riding west on Chandler Boulevard over the Interstate 10 overpass toward Ahwatukee when José Juarez hit them after exiting the freeway." Perhaps he (George) is the person the first article refers to? It says that he and his wife (who was also injured) have formed a non-profit foundation to cover his unpaid medical expenses and educate the public about bicycle laws.

Interestingly, both of the advocates mentioned in this second article are working to educate motorists and cyclists alike about sharing the road, not advocating for segregated facilities.

Now, there's some fuel on the fire... :)

[sbhikes]

Agree completely that good separate roads for bikes would be great. The problem that I see is that this would end up like segregation with the "separate but equal" concept, and as we know from the days of segregation, the facilities were not equal.

In practice, the bicycle facilities will always be vastly inferior to riding on the roads and will only be half hearted attempts.

This is not true. I live in a place where I have choices to either use separated bike paths or not. There is absolutely ZERO desire to confine the bicycles to the bike paths. ZERO. And bicycling is so prevalent that they wouldn't dare try.

I'm tired of hearing this silly refrain that has no basis in reality.

Please someone, anyone, show me a city that has reduced its cycling-specific infrastructure and can boast an increase in cycling. And show me a city that has 4% trips by bicycle that doesn't have lots of cycling-specific infrastructure and a strong political presence of cyclists.

I'm still waiting for this proof.

[JohnBrooking]

Diane, it's great that no one in Santa Barbara has any desire to confine bikes to the paths. But that doesn't sound like the intention of the the guy who wrote the article that Brian referred to.

[ckellingc]

I disagree with the "separate bike paths". Here in St. Joe, we built some, but they were immediately claimed for old ladies walking dogs. They get pretty ticked off when I ride on the path, even though the sign clearly has a bicycle on it. I tried using "bike paths" but they are just too busy.

Then again, that might just be here.

[sbhikes]

Just don't make blanket statements like "you know how it goes with those bike paths" because as soon as you do, someone can tell you that it's not how it goes.

Please read Chip's post. It's time to get beyond the silly arguments. There are all kinds of facilities for bicycles. There are only going to be more of them. You may as well learn how to use them safely. And there's nothing saying that the presence of some kinds of bike facilities means that that's all you get to use. You can advocate to use everything without having to deny any one kind of facility.

If you dare.

[noisebeam]

4% trips by bicycle that doesn't have lots of cycling-specific infrastructure and a strong political presence of cyclists.
Many cities don't track % of trips. I do know that Tempe, AZ boasts 4% of non student commuters use bicycle. I also know that fewer trips are made by bicycle here that many other cities - that is the bicycle presence away from dense student areas is masked by auto presence.
Al

[Ekdog]

I disagree with those naysayers who argue that we shouldn't build bike paths because it would lead to the prohibition of cyclists circulating on streets and roads.

That certainly has not been the case in cities like Amsterdam and Bogota, where there are extensive networks of bike paths; nor has there been talk of such a prohibition here in Seville, where a network is presently being built.

The first lanes have already opened here, and the rest are due to be finished by summer. What a pleasure it is to ride without fighting traffic!

I urge you to pressure your local politicians to build bike paths in your cities. You won't regret it.

Regards,

Ek

[Roody]

Please someone, anyone, show me a city that has reduced its cycling-specific infrastructure and can boast an increase in cycling. And show me a city that has 4% trips by bicycle that doesn't have lots of cycling-specific infrastructure and a strong political presence of cyclists.

I'm still waiting for this proof.

You will not get any proof of causation because none is possible. The association between bike facilities and ridership is correlational (if it even exists). It's a logical fallacy to state that one causes the other. Here are the logical possibilities, each equally unprovable:
Bike facilities cause or contribute to greater ridership.
Greater ridership results in more lobbying power, causing or contributing to an increase in bike facilities.
The correlation between bike lanes and ridership is attributable to other factors, known or unknown.Just thought you might like to know, before you spend too much effort proving the unprovable. :)

[Roody]

Hey, thanks for your input. I read the article, and thought this would be a perfect opportunity for discussion. It just so happens that the writer's opinion falls at the opposite end of the spectrum from HH's, while everyone else seems to be somewhere in the middle of the road, if you will allow me a bad pun. And no flaming here so far.

As to my username, since I no longer live in a foreign country, Expatriate no longer seems appropriate, except perhaps for my Australian wife. That Forum Guy seemed to be an accurate title, but caused much confusion. So after a discussion with Joe, I stole the name Brian from a user that had not logged in for almost two years. I fail to see how that indicates an unstable personality.

Perhaps this thread can get back on topic now.
Well, Brian...if that's your real name.... ;)

It is hard to keep up with the changes, and Brian is a rather nondescript nom-de-plume. I have usually enjoyed your posts in the past, but I have to agree with randya on this one. It seems inflammatory and unduly personal for a mod, even if it does fall within the forum guidelines. But after all, if you're the head moderator, you get to interpret the guidelines. so your OP must be an example of what you want to see on this forum. How disappointing....

[genec]

More and more people thinking like this guy is the natural and perfectly logical result of a culture that believes, and where cyclists themselves advocate, that cyclists should be riding in separated facilities from motor traffic whenever possible.

Accept this now and start doing everything and anything you can to reverse this trend, or wait until it's too late. Your choice.

I accept this challenge. I believe cyclists and motor cars can exist together... as long as the motorists in those cars are not trying to treat each road like an expressway or an Indy racetrack. The answer is simple. Slow the cars down. Reduce the speed limits on surface streets and enforce it. Think of the revenue gain for cash strapped cities like San Diego.

If motorists want and "need" to go fast, they should use the freeways. Surface streets should not have freeway speeds. That is the wrong approach.

There, it's that simple.