Vehicular Cycling (VC) - The Division

where do I fit into this "Division" anyway?

I'm an agressive, 365'er, high mileage, vehicular cyclist that supports bike specific infrastructure for the benefits it brings a community, and recognizes a bicyclist can ride vehicularly in a lane classed for bike travel.

where am I sitting in this great, mischaracterized 'division?'

Here's some advice on how to ride properly in a lawful manner (emphasis added):

"Indeed, the standard advice to lawful, competent cyclists is to ride properly by ignoring the presence of the bicycle-lane stripe. Depending on the jurisdiction, this may involve disobeying the law..." - John Forester

http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/place_of_bicycle_transportation.htm

:roflmao:
Good advice, even if you find it funny, but is that not what the 2 bad cops in Portland are ticketing cyclist for?

bad cops, more doughnuts. they give doughnuts out free in Portland to bicyclists one day a month, I've heard. maybe the cops are just jealous.

Could be, I will make sure we don't start handing out doughnuts in Hawaii.

you're soo anti-bicyclist :D, CB HI.

NO free doughnuts once a month? spoilsport.

OK, I agree with that and those are all good projects, but I suspect that the mandatory use laws have been around a lot longer than the other concerns, yet the mandatory use law opposition always gets pushed to the side. In Hawaii, it got push aside for a mandatory helmet law.
It gets pushed to the side because legislators who live outside of the Portland area have not been willling to support it. We get a chance in this state to propose and pass new laws once every other year, and the groups who lobby in Salem for cycling concerns want to make change happen and they want the work they do down there to count for something. I think it's wise to push for the things they are likely to get before they go for the tough ones. It's not like there isn't dozens of useful changes to choose from.

I'm actually thinking it's possible that if the 3 foot passing rule and Idaho-style stops become law, and we demonstrate that the world isn't going to come to an end for motorists as a result, the climate may be more favorable to get rid of the bike lane mandatory use law in the next 1-2 legislative sessions. These things take time.

I do not believe a mandatory helmet law for adults is on anyone's agenda in this state, whether in the short or long term.

Good advice, even if you find it funny, but is that not what the 2 bad cops in Portland are ticketing cyclist for?
They have, and they've also ticketed cyclists for leaving the bike lane to make a left turn. I'm really not sure anyone knows what Barnum and Balzer are trying to prove. I think some Portland guys on the SS/FG forum have had up close and personal interactions with the Barnum & Balzer Circus, perhaps they could shed some light here.

Why is some guy living on an island complaining about Portland, for crying out loud? Why do the anti-facilities people complain loudest about places they either have never been to or aren't planning to go to any time soon?

Why is some guy living on an island complaining about Portland, for crying out loud? Why do the anti-facilities people complain loudest about places they either have never been to or aren't planning to go to any time soon?
Dogma?

Ideology?

Spread the Joy, since his mission is complete at home?

Why do the anti-facilities people complain loudest about places they either have never been to or aren't planning to go to any time soon?

Perhaps because when our local facilities advocates try to encourage our communities to copy those seen in other communities, we want it to be clear which facilities we don't want copied, and why?

We all have local advocates who ask our government for designation of bad designs like door zone bike lanes and two-way sidewalk bike paths through our cities. They use existence of such facilities in other cities as justification for copying them here - if Chicago could get away with marking door zone bike lanes between extra-narrow travel lanes and extra-narrow parking lanes, why not Raleigh?

I think it's important to separate good and bad designs; those that are compatible with best bicycling practices (like riding outside the door zone and riding with traffic rather than on the sidewalk) and those that are not. I'm glad we have to point to other cities to illustrate most of the bad designs, rather than having more of them where we live. Likewise, I wish we had more of the good designs and policies here, like wide, paved rail-trails with minimal junctions; better street connectivity; short-cut paths; sheltered bike parking; traffic signals that detect bicyclists stopped in the travel lane; policies to sweep bike lanes adequately; etc.

i see you still cannot endorse better bike lane designs for your community, even on arterial streets in and out of Cary, steve. you do realize your stunning unendorsement of on-road, bike specific infrastructure is likely helping ****** greater ridership in your community?

i see you still cannot endorse better bike lane designs for your community, even on arterial streets in and out of Cary, steve. you do realize your stunning unendorsement of on-road, bike specific infrastructure is likely helping ****** greater ridership in your community?



I think it's important to separate good and bad designs; those that are compatible with best bicycling practices (like riding outside the door zone and riding with traffic rather than on the sidewalk) and those that are not...I wish we had more of the good designs and policies here, like wide, paved rail-trails with minimal junctions; better street connectivity; short-cut paths; sheltered bike parking; traffic signals that detect bicyclists stopped in the travel lane; policies to sweep bike lanes adequately; etc.
Sometimes it looks like you don't read Steve's posts, Bek.

bad cops, more doughnuts. they give doughnuts out free in Portland to bicyclists one day a month, I've heard. maybe the cops are just jealous.

Breakfast on the Bridges (http://bikeportland.org/2006/03/31/breakfast-blossoms-and-bikes/)

Breakfast on the Bridges (http://bikeportland.org/2006/03/31/breakfast-blossoms-and-bikes/)

Speaking of Portland bike culture.....is zoobombing VC? :D (I had to bring it up since donnamb brought this event to my attention in Living Car Free)

Why is some guy living on an island complaining about Portland, for crying out loud? Why do the anti-facilities people complain loudest about places they either have never been to or aren't planning to go to any time soon?
I guess you (like Chipcom) expect everyone with an opposing view to yours, to post credentials first.

Since I am retired Military, I have lived and ridden in quite a few places. I have ridden in CO, CA, CT, MD, VA, FL, ID, NE, OR, WA, Washington DC, HI, Japan. So not quite the limited experience some want to box me into. It includes Portland and Eugene, OR (the town I bought my bent in) as well.

Your repeated labeling of VC'ers as anti-facilities is really old and has been pointed out to be wrong many, many times. Yet you persist. Makes you appear to have a reading comprehension problem.

Post # 261 - well written Steve and very good points. Sadly, Honolulu has our own extremely bad bike lanes and a bike path we can point too. Some here say "If it is good enough for bike friendly Portland, than it will work fine here."

Breakfast on the Bridges (http://bikeportland.org/2006/03/31/breakfast-blossoms-and-bikes/)
That is a cool thing, except for the jealous cops.
It would be cool if downtown breakfast joints gave discounts to commuting cyclist year round:D , rather than just one day during bike week.

Dogma?

Ideology?

Spread the Joy, since his mission is complete at home?
At least your town and my suburb still have kids that ride to school, and all the kids here do it without riding in a single bike lane.:)

I still want to know where I fit into this "Division" anyway?

I'm an agressive, 365'er, high mileage, vehicular cyclist that supports bike specific infrastructure for the benefits it brings a community, and recognizes a bicyclist can ride vehicularly in a lane classed for bike travel.

where am I sitting in this great, mischaracterized 'division?'

I still want to know where I fit into this "Division" anyway?

I'm an agressive, 365'er, high mileage, vehicular cyclist that supports bike specific infrastructure for the benefits it brings a community, and recognizes a bicyclist can ride vehicularly in a lane classed for bike travel.

where am I sitting in this great, mischaracterized 'division?'
Your the "crack in the wall".;)

Some here say "If it is good enough for bike friendly Portland, than it will work fine here."
That's really sad to hear. Our bike facilities here are carefully planned to fit the place they are meant for. The city is very thoughtful in their planning, and they take into account feedback from people that actually ride the roads they make changes to. I can't imagine living somewhere that they take a idea that was meant for another city and just slap it in place with very little forethought. I'd be deeply frustrated, myself.

Especially considering how hard the folks at the Hawaii Bicycle League (HBL) have worked on some really good cycling projects (not including their support for a mandatory helmet law).

From previous post:
HBL worked extremely hard with the former Honolulu Mayor and the City Council on a street redesign for Young Street. A favorite route of cyclist even though it has many hazards.
“Young Street, Honolulu, HI” (http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=827903)
The HBL/City Council plan included a center parking lane (no curb parking), good sight distances from driveways and intersections, wider travel lanes, and yes it included bike lanes. At least the bike lanes were the least dangerous ones, because of the overall design. The City Council and Mayor agreed to fund the plan, yea and a huge victory for HBL.

Then Honolulu had an election, and the new mayor changed the plan. So for all their hard work, HBL only got the new Bike Lane on Young Street between Pensacola Street and Victoria Street pictured below:

Here is the newest Honolulu Bike Lane. It repeatedly weaves left, is in the door zone, has many blind busy driveways and drivers get angry when I refuse to use it.
Honolulu's newest bike lane (http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/2162/picture006ft3.jpg)

Some how, I think we cyclist would have been better off without our brand new bike lane.

I have to admit.....that bike lane SUX!:eek:


Especially considering how hard the folks at the Hawaii Bicycle League (HBL) have worked on some really good cycling projects (not including their support for a mandatory helmet law).

From previous post:
HBL worked extremely hard with the former Honolulu Mayor and the City Council on a street redesign for Young Street. A favorite route of cyclist even though it has many hazards.
“Young Street, Honolulu, HI” (http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=827903)
The HBL/City Council plan included a center parking lane (no curb parking), good sight distances from driveways and intersections, wider travel lanes, and yes it included bike lanes. At least the bike lanes were the least dangerous ones, because of the overall design. The City Council and Mayor agreed to fund the plan, yea and a huge victory for HBL.

Then Honolulu had an election, and the new mayor changed the plan. So for all their hard work, HBL only got the new Bike Lane on Young Street between Pensacola Street and Victoria Street pictured below:

Here is the newest Honolulu Bike Lane. It repeatedly weaves left, is in the door zone, has many blind busy driveways and drivers get angry when I refuse to use it.
Honolulu's newest bike lane (http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/2162/picture006ft3.jpg)

Some how, I think we cyclist would have been better off without our brand new bike lane.

I have to admit.....that bike lane SUX!:eek:
Absolutely hideous. I can't even imagine having to deal with a bike lane like that.

Absolutely hideous. I can't even imagine having to deal with a bike lane like that.
That's not a bike lane. :rolleyes: That's just a little extra road paint. Looks like maybe something by Pablo Picasso.

Absolutely hideous. I can't even imagine having to deal with a bike lane like that.

Yeah, but do to the bike lane proponents, there it is. And the motorist ARE going to expect cyclists to use it.

If that is the case, then how did we end up with these mandatory use laws?

I am not terribly familiar with their history, but I understand that many of these laws were passed during a period of low bicycle usage in the US. From what I gather from Forester's articles/books, there was (? is ?) also a period of misinformation, whereby legislation was passed for our own good.

If you accept those two things, it is easy to see how a lot of crazy laws could be passed.

Since one aspect of the Division as I understand it is whether cycling advocacy should include outreach and increasing ridership ...

Has anyone ever determined the relationship between bicycle usage and legislation that limits that usage? Thinking abstractly, I do not see a clear relationship between the two. Suppose cyclists compose a small minority of road users and then cycling usage increases. One might think that since the political base of cyclists increase, legislation that is more favorable to cyclists should pass too. However, it could be the case that with more cyclists on the road, cyclists become more of an irritant to the majority auto drivers. Consequently, legislation less favorable to cyclists is enacted.

My guess is that in the US where individual rights seem to have a higher degree of protection than other Western countries, one is probably better off increasing the political base of cyclists.

But how can that be possible if folks haven't read the books, taken the classes, been indoctrinated, etc. like you have so that they can ride a bicycle on the road?

Didn't we cover this already?

So we got bike lanes because of democracy and the population wanted them; but we got mandatory use laws because of evil politicians with a hidden agenda?

:lol:

OK, I agree with that and those are all good projects, but I suspect that the mandatory use laws have been around a lot longer than the other concerns, yet the mandatory use law opposition always gets pushed to the side. In Hawaii, it got push aside for a mandatory helmet law.

That might have to do with the level of enforcement. It use to be the case that many states had anti-sodomy laws as well (do they still have them?) despite little support for them. Until a motivating incident occurs or a large percentage of the constituancy deeply cares about an issue, it is hard to get legislators to act on an issue.

Unfortunately, rider bills are another aspect of democracy. Deal with it or be an agent of change and lobby the politicians rather than railing on me about it. I'm not a politician, I'm a College student. As I said, quit ankle biting.:rolleyes:

I can't expect government to represent the people's will without direct oversight? That is, I can't expect them to do their job?

Note: There is an obvious amount of sarcasm there. But citizens have the right to complain about government and well as lobby/protest their government. IMO, it is reasonable to have some expectation of good governance. Although I understand the practicalities of your point.

Your the "crack in the wall".;)

Hey that doesn't sound so bad. I half expect someone to respond that Bek is "the crack in the @ss" given some of the virulent conversations in the forum.

Just so I don't start something ... this is a joke. I am not implying that we are all part of some massive butt. :D

I can't imagine living somewhere that they take a idea that was meant for another city and just slap it in place with very little forethought. I'd be deeply frustrated, myself.

If it happened often enough, it might even make you a bikeway skeptic. You might demand to see the engineering details of any project before daring to support it just because the planners call it a "bikeway." You might recommend that some streets be left alone - gasp! - rather than trying to shoe-horn in badly designed facilities.

But then, as a result of your inability to provide blanket support for bikeways, the bikeway advocates would call you an anti-facilities elitist. You would become demonized as the opponent of cycling utopia, intent on reducing bicycle use in favor of increased automobile use, pollution, childhood obesity, and bad breath.

That might have to do with the level of enforcement. It use to be the case that many states had anti-sodomy laws as well (do they still have them?) despite little support for them.

North Carolina has an anti-sodomy law. Sodomy between consenting adults is a Class I felony here. The police enforce it whenever the perpetrators do something (or are someone) the police don't like.

The lesson for cycling is that if you want the police to leave you alone, don't leave laws on the books that they can exploit as an excuse to stop or even arrest you. For instance, in Florida, some police had a habit of stopping and searching cyclists essentially for "bicycling while black" in the wrong part of town. The police simply used the local "bell or gong" ordinance requirement to stop anybody they didn't like the looks of, because odds were they didn't have a bell.

The purpose of mandatory-use laws was to control cyclists for the benefit of motorists' convenience. They were copied from European nations where the cycling population was large enough that cyclists might leave the bikeway due to bicycle traffic congestion on the bikeway, or because the bikeway was not suitable to them, and this could delay motorists. The laws were copied in the USA because at the time, bicycling was increasing (hence the effort to build bikeways) and the traffic engineers feared that the bicyclist volumes might delay motorists.

So, if you violate the mandatory-use law but no motorists have to slow down, the police will probably leave you alone, but if another driver has to slow down because you stay out of a door zone bike lane, and the police don't like that, the officer will likely stop you and cite you. Depending on how the law is written, it may be a traffic ticket, or it may be a misdemeanor.

That is a cool thing, except for the jealous cops.
It would be cool if downtown breakfast joints gave discounts to commuting cyclist year round:D , rather than just one day during bike week.
Actually, BonB happens the last Friday of every month on two bridges, the bike week event was an extra bonus day. And it's not discounts given by restaurants; it's free, and it's done by cyclists for cyclists, with donated comestibles. And everything is hauled to and from the site by pedal power.

Speaking of Portland bike culture.....is zoobombing VC? :D (I had to bring it up since donnamb brought this event to my attention in Living Car Free)
ZooBomb always takes the lane. Check it out! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlRVi_jYyXU)

:)

Actually, BonB happens the last Friday of every month on two bridges, the bike week event was an extra bonus day. And it's not discounts given by restaurants; it's free, and it's done by cyclists for cyclists, with donated comestibles. And everything is hauled to and from the site by pedal power.
And if cops on bicycles show up looking for breakfast, they're welcome to join us. :)

And everything is hauled to and from the site by pedal power.
I'm about to let myself get roped into helping out. You'd better start showing up for the one on the Hawthorne, dude! :p

The lesson for cycling is that if you want the police to leave you alone, don't leave laws on the books that they can exploit as an excuse to stop or even arrest you. For instance, in Florida, some police had a habit of stopping and searching cyclists essentially for "bicycling while black" in the wrong part of town. The police simply used the local "bell or gong" ordinance requirement to stop anybody they didn't like the looks of, because odds were they didn't have a bell.

I totally agree that we should work to revoke these laws. As you might already know, DC has a mandatory bike registration law while making it difficult to register one's bike. I in fact tried to register at two stations where (1) it took forever to find someone familiar with the process and (2) it turned out that they lacked the necessary equipment to register my bike. So yes, the registration law is (rarely) used to harass messengers and whoever else crosses an officer.

But when it is rarely enforced, as in DC, it is difficult to motivate people to rally against the law. Although the local advocacy group is bringing this to the mayor and commissioner again. It appears that all sides agree that the law in ineffectual. Now we have to get someone to sign the piece of paper.

As you might already know, DC has a mandatory bike registration law while making it difficult to register one's bike. I in fact tried to register at two stations where (1) it took forever to find someone familiar with the process and (2) it turned out that they lacked the necessary equipment to register my bike. So yes, the registration law is (rarely) used to harass messengers and whoever else crosses an officer.


A year ago I discovered that a town in Georgia was attempting to develop a mandatory registration requirement for bicycles for the purpose of discouraging out-of-towners from bicycling through town, particularly on the narrow roads where some local motorists felt inconvenienced. The city staff researching bicycle registration laws in an effort to draft the law were unhappy with the task they were given by their political leaders, so they were very open to discuss the intended purpose and side effects of the proposed law. Given the cost that would be incurred by local residents to register their bicycles, enforcement on locals would be highly unpopular and probably not done. However, it would give the local government the power to do what they wanted: a legal excuse to pull over groups of suspected out-of-town cyclists and ticket them, in order to discourage their cycling through town.

I gave the local planners there some references to cases where state courts ruled that local vehicle registration schemes that significantly interfered with the rights of out-of-towners to travel through the community were unconstitutional (right to travel, and 1st and 14th amendments). I pointed out that the fact that the proposed ordinance was specifically designed to discourage travel pretty much guaranteed a court challenge. I don't think it went anywhere after that.

A year ago I discovered that a town in Georgia was attempting to develop a mandatory registration requirement for bicycles for the purpose of discouraging out-of-towners from bicycling through town, particularly on the narrow roads where some local motorists felt inconvenienced. The city staff researching bicycle registration laws in an effort to draft the law were unhappy with the task they were given by their political leaders, so they were very open to discuss the intended purpose and side effects of the proposed law. Given the cost that would be incurred by local residents to register their bicycles, enforcement on locals would be highly unpopular and probably not done. However, it would give the local government the power to do what they wanted: a legal excuse to pull over groups of suspected out-of-town cyclists and ticket them, in order to discourage their cycling through town.

I gave the local planners there some references to cases where state courts ruled that local vehicle registration schemes that significantly interfered with the rights of out-of-towners to travel through the community were unconstitutional (right to travel, and 1st and 14th amendments). I pointed out that the fact that the proposed ordinance was specifically designed to discourage travel pretty much guaranteed a court challenge. I don't think it went anywhere after that.

Hmmm, that is interesting. I should forward your note to WABA.org. Thanks SG.

Just for a quick reference ...

http://waba.org/takeaction/dc.php

That is a cool thing, except for the jealous cops.
It would be cool if downtown breakfast joints gave discounts to commuting cyclist year round , rather than just one day during bike week.

Actually, BonB happens the last Friday of every month on two bridges, the bike week event was an extra bonus day. And it's not discounts given by restaurants; it's free, and it's done by cyclists for cyclists, with donated comestibles. And everything is hauled to and from the site by pedal power.
I understood all of that, my comment was sort of thinking out loud about other cities, that only do something during bike week. It would be cool to have a year round breakfast discount in most cities for commuting cyclist.:D

I am not terribly familiar with their history, but I understand that many of these laws were passed during a period of low bicycle usage in the US. From what I gather from Forester's articles/books, there was (? is ?) also a period of misinformation, whereby legislation was passed for our own good.

If you accept those two things, it is easy to see how a lot of crazy laws could be passed.

Since one aspect of the Division as I understand it is whether cycling advocacy should include outreach and increasing ridership ...

Has anyone ever determined the relationship between bicycle usage and legislation that limits that usage? Thinking abstractly, I do not see a clear relationship between the two. Suppose cyclists compose a small minority of road users and then cycling usage increases. One might think that since the political base of cyclists increase, legislation that is more favorable to cyclists should pass too. However, it could be the case that with more cyclists on the road, cyclists become more of an irritant to the majority auto drivers. Consequently, legislation less favorable to cyclists is enacted.

My guess is that in the US where individual rights seem to have a higher degree of protection than other Western countries, one is probably better off increasing the political base of cyclists.
I am not aware any good studies on the subject of mandatory side path/bike lane use laws. There were a couple of studies done on mandatory helmet use laws that indicated cycling decreased after the laws passed.

Cyclist have gained the greatest power with the internet. When a new mandatory side path use law gets proposed nowadays, word spreads pretty quickly. The offending legislature gets flooded with mail, e-mail and calls. The proposal usaully gets dropped quick, especially if the area is a tourist destination.

But once a law is already on the books, it is a much steeper uphill battle.

But once a law is already on the books, it is a much steeper uphill battle.

I agree that preventing bad legislation is much easier than removing bad legislation. In my example above regarding the mandatory bike registration in DC, bike advocates and the police commissioner agree that the law should be revoked, but for whatever reason, it has been difficult getting movement on the issue.

Hmmm, that is interesting. I should forward your note to WABA.org. Thanks SG.

Just for a quick reference ...

http://waba.org/takeaction/dc.php

Here's a little more detail on a local-registration legal case in the town next-door to where I live:



RIGHT TO TRAVEL
*TOWN OF MORRISVILLE'S TAXI CAB ORDINANCE
Several taxi cab drivers who are licensed in the towns of Cary and Raleigh, but not Morrisville, contacted the ACLU-NC office for help when they were ticketed for failing to register as an operator of a taxi in the Town of Morrisville pursuant to Town of Morrisville Ordinance § 01-47. Under the terms of the ordinance any taxi cab parked or traveling on the roads of Morrisville (within the corporate limit) is subject to the provisions of the ordinance. There are also a series of provisions in the ordinance which place very heavy, if not impossibly heavy burdens on taxi drivers. If every one of the over 1,600 towns in North Carolina could require taxis that merely drive through their town to submit to similar provisions it would be impossible for taxi drivers to comply. The drivers were ticketed merely for driving through the Town of Morrisville to pick up passengers who previously solicited the business from the company for which they work. The ACLU-NC Legal Foundation represented the drivers at Wake County district court. In August, a Wake County district court judge dismissed the charges against the drivers, holding that the ordinance was an unconstitutional infringement on their right to intrastate travel. In addition, the judge held that the statute violated state law which protects passengers rights to have access to taxi drivers of their choice.

Also: http://www.ci.morrisville.nc.us/webAgendas/2007/20070226/2007-025.pdf


The attached ordinance 2007-025 amends Ordinance 01-47 which was
found unconstitutional by a Wake County Judge because, read literally, it
prohibited an operator from picking up or delivering a passenger in
Morrisville, or even passing through Morrisville, without being licensed
by the Town. The judge thought there should be an exception for taxicab
operators who are licensed by another jurisdiction but do some pickups
and deliveries in Morrisville. The attached ordinance 2007-025 new
wording underlined addresses the court’s concern.

This recognizes reciprocity between communities, allowing vehicle registration in one place to be recognized elsewhere, and reduces the ability of an ordinance to be designed to discourage travel. However, if it is logistically very difficult for an outsider to obtain registration, for instance if one's own municipality does not offer it, then one could still make the case that the ordinance requirement is an unlawful infringement. This is why I oppose mandatory local registration programs but support voluntary ones for vehicle recovery after theft. All of my bikes are registered in Cary.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/zoom/html/2003651408.html

Here is a photo of Seattle's finest facilities. Which cyclist is on which side of the 'Division'??

the plan is to improve that facility, galen.

3 cyclists riding outside the door zone, in the bike lane, one cyclist passing another cyclist in the lane.

the master plan has Seattle improving that bike lane with a door zone 'buffer'. do you want seattle to get rid of bike infrastructure? you are clearly anti-facilites, galen. if you lived here, you'd probably ride in the bike lanes when safe and leave them when conditions dictated. galen, you'd likely take advantage of the MUPs that move cyclists long distances across the metro Seattle area for your 'fitness' rides.

Seattle has a goal of increasing trips by bike via bike infrastructure, and, following the lead of other cities around the world, has developed plans and infrastructure to do so. and its improving every day, with the input of cyclists and advocacy groups. anti-facilties blowhards like galen still use bike facilties.

Yesterday, at the unveiling of the master plan, one of the vocal anti-facilities foresterite "Bicycle drivers" showed up riding on the BIKE PATH,:eek: despite a street 30 feet away!

he then spewed his anti-bicycling 'vehicle parity' slant to the radio shock jockeys. what a putz.

The fact is that all three cyclist are riding VC and the painted line has absolutely no impact on their ability to do so or their safety. The bike lane as shown in the photo is heinous. The right-side line is under the tires of parked cars for crying out loud. The locals have obviously adapted and ride basically on the outer line of the bike lane (which, if faster motor vehicles were not paying attention and moving left, would have them close-passing the cyclists). The lane is plenty wide for vehicles to pass safely without the paint line. If the great bicycle master plan is going to move the existing bike lane out of the door zone than it will be a lot of money spend for paint strips (double the cost since the bike lane stripes were painted once already) and will accomplish nothing as far as cyclists riding safely down that particular road are concerned.



the plan is to improve that facility, galen.

3 cyclists riding outside the door zone, in the bike lane, one cyclist passing another cyclist in the lane.

the master plan has Seattle improving that bike lane with a door zone 'buffer'. do you want seattle to get rid of bike infrastructure? you are clearly anti-facilites, galen. if you lived here, you'd probably ride in the bike lanes when safe and leave them when conditions dictated. galen, you'd likely take advantage of the MUPs that move cyclists long distances across the metro Seattle area for your 'fitness' rides.

Seattle has a goal of increasing trips by bike via bike infrastructure, and, following the lead of other cities around the world, has developed plans and infrastructure to do so. and its improving every day, with the input of cyclists and advocacy groups. anti-facilties blowhards like galen still use bike facilties.

Yesterday, at the unveiling of the master plan, one of the vocal anti-facilities foresterite "Bicycle drivers" showed up riding on the BIKE PATH,:eek: despite a street 30 feet away!

he then spewed his anti-bicycling 'vehicle parity' slant to the radio shock jockeys. what a putz.

your analysis is incorrect, galen.

paint striping is not expensive, that street is a de facto bicycle avenue for commuters, the bike lanes encourages less curb hugging than wide outside lanes, and the improvement of the bike lane is a welcome addition to seattles' bike infrastructure.

removal of bike infrastructure would leave the roads more autocentric, lead to more curb hugging and more sidewalk bicycling.

and you don't want that, do you, chestbeater?

Looks like the cyclist already disregard the bike lane pretty much already. Don't see any curb to hug, just parked cars. So, you are incorrect sir. The locals have already figured out that the stripe is meaningless.