Bike trail - Am I just a grump?

[HoustonGal]

To give you a bit of background, I live in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood in Houston. Our residents like to get out and ride their comfort bikes in the evenings and weekends.

We have an old rail line that runs through the neighborhood, and the city has been promising to convert it into a paved hike-bike trail for, oh, 8 years now. Needless to say, it's still gravel and weeds. In the past month, there has been a neighborhood movement to force the city to finish the darn thing already. So protest marches are held and petitions are signed. The neighbors claim the trail is absolutely necessary to hook up with the rest of the city MUP system. "How else can we get out of our cars to make trips to downtown?" they cry. "This trail will let us link up to the trail system that goes to the medical center! Otherwise we'll just have to drive," they declare. "And just think how nice it will be to ride to Target!"

OK, this is all well and good, but the truth of the matter is, you CAN ride to these places. I ride 6.5 miles each way to the medical center to work most days. I ride my bike to the Target (it's a mile away, that's it). But in order to ride to the inner city destinations, you have to ride in traffic. And you have to go over or under an interstate. And I can understand why people are apprehensive, but seriously, it's not that hard. Traffic is usually pretty light. Take the lane if you're worried, there are plenty of other lanes for cars to use and go around ("But I'll be killed by the Houston drivers!"). There's even a bike lane on the way to the med center. ("But it's full of glass and debris!")

And so the MUP is presented as the only safe option. But what if everyone got out there on the busy streets and rode? What if instead of the 3-5 commuters in the morning and the 10-15 road bikers in the evening we had 50 or so neighborhood residents using the streets instead? Wouldn't the drivers get used to us? And why do we have to all squeeze on a little MUP path when we could all be using the streets like the vehicles we are?

I guess I just don't understand why most of my neighbors feel like begging for a bike path is the only way to cycle safely. If enough of us got out there and just rode, maybe we wouldn't need it. And I think the "bike path or nothing" just further marginalizes the utility/commuter bikers who really do share the road.

[bkrownd]

Be thankful that Ma and Pa Kettle and their grandkids will be on the MUP with their comfort bikes. You don't want to have to deal with another deadly road hazard, do you?

[europa]

Being a non-American reading you lot carry on about your bike paths and drivers, I'm not sure I'd want to ride a bike in America either :eek:

Seriously, you lot do seem to make it all seem rather scary and if that is the impression the 'non-rider' has, I'm not surprised at the response. Even here in little ol' Adelaide, people are impressed by my heroism and less impressed by my lack of common sense for riding places on me bike. In modern society, it takes quite a leap of faith to ride in amongst the big, scary cars - a not irrational attitude in some ways, but a big disincentive to ride on the roads none the less.

Richard

[Robert C]

I really do not understand the issue. The land is there? Instead of organizing protests, why arn't they organizing weekend construction parties? With the gravel bed already laid there is really nothing to do other than lay asphalt.

This is a bike path, not a highway extension. All you realy need are a lot of people willing to shovel, a grader, and a roller. The grader can be a blade on the front of an ATV (A lot of people love the opportunity to use thier ATV for real work, te reason that they claimed that they purchased it.). A roller is somethiong that is hard to substute; however, light duty ones do sell cheap, another out is rental, there is always the possibility that the city will be willing to run theirs for you if you organize all of the labor and materials.
This is not just crazy talk. When the local bike club wanted a new trail we made one. The Greenway connecting Medford OR and Ashland OR is doing the same thing on a formal paved MUP.

If you can show the city 50+ people willing to work and provide materials and start on the project they will do one of two things, make it possible, or close it down. If they do the latter then it is time to really start protesting untill then, it is time to work.

(this reminds me of the people who whine about the trail maintence and have never once been present on a work day or done any on thier own)

[maddyfish]

That is the problem with MUP, the more they build, the more you'll be pushed onto them, and their 10 mile per hour speeds.

[Brian Ratliff]

What's wrong with having the option? Just asking... Besides, if you don't want it or are agnostic, don't attend the protests to get it. If they end of getting it, why in the world would you oppose it?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

What's wrong with having the option? Just asking... Besides, if you don't want it or are agnostic, don't attend the protests to get it. If they end of getting it, why in the world would you oppose it?
Because VC dogma dictates opposition by the VC zealots, that's why.

[maddmaxx]

Be thankful that Ma and Pa Kettle and their grandkids will be on the MUP with their comfort bikes. You don't want to have to deal with another deadly road hazard, do you?

May you live to be a hundred!

[Ginny]

[QUOTE=HoustonGal] What if instead of the 3-5 commuters in the morning and the 10-15 road bikers in the evening we had 50 or so neighborhood residents using the streets instead? Wouldn't the drivers get used to us? And why do we have to all squeeze on a little MUP path when we could all be using the streets like the vehicles we are?
QUOTE]

Here, here.The hard part is getting them out there.
It takes a while to get used to riding with the big scary cars whipping by you at three times your speed.
It takes a while to get used to the occasional yell out the window from a JAM who thinks that because they outweigh you by 100 times they also always have the right of way.
But it can be done. People can be taught how to ride and keep themselves safe.

The cagers need to be taught how to drive around cyclists. They need to be taught the rules of the road and where bikes fit into the grand scheme of things.

The problem is no one is teaching either group. Why don't the police hold more 'training' seminars to teach cyclists and cagers how to be safe on the road? Is it because police don't want us there either?

[bongo_x]

I really don't get this. it seems there are a lot of people in your area who are not comfortable riding their cruisers in traffic, and are trying to make a safer alternative, and this makes you angry. that kind of logic is really hard to follow.

of course you also state that if there where a lot more casual bike riders, some of them families on cruiser style bikes, riding in traffic, some of them taking up lanes if they wanted, that this would somehow endear bike riders to drivers. I on the other hand think it would get someone killed.

I used to ride in city traffic all the time, especially when I lived in Los Angeles. I even rode for years after I was hit by a car. as I got older I decided it just was not worth the risk. I won't even hardly ride in the streets around my house in suburban Atlanta because I think it's just too dangerous. it's trails only for me now. I'm sorry, but I think more bikes in the street won't make it better, but more separate bike paths would.

by the way, getting hit by a car really hurts.

bb

[Denny Koll]

It's wonderful new that folks want an MUP. Strange how a cyclist can twist this positive news and put a negative spin on it.

Now they won't be riding on the road like I do!!

So what? Does everyone have to be like you? I'm always amused and somewhat troubled when an MUP thread comes up and folks start braying..."Get off the MUP and get on the road"

You are hurting the cycling community with this attitude. Folks on comfort bikes are not on the lower rung of the cycling hierarchy ...are they? Get off your high horse.

[nick burns]

Street riding isn't for everyone. Some folks will never be comfortable riding on roads with cars whizzing by. I think it's nice that they can be provided with an alternative that makes them feel comfortable and gets them on their bikes.

[maddyfish]

All that is understandable, but I feel that once there are MUPs in a area, that at the least, all cyclists will be pressured onto them, and later possibly forced onto them. It is a slippery slope.

MUPs are un-needed, they already exist, they're called "ROADS"

[gordyt]

HoustonGal I have no problem with folks that want to use the bike trails. I have ridden pretty much all of them in Houston myself. But, like you, I ride mostly on the street. I live in Humble, but ride the bike from Humble down to and all around Houston quite frequently.

Like you wrote, it's not that hard. And really, I've been fortunate enough so far (knock on wood) to not have any serious issues with motorists anywhere in the Houston area.

Aside from the social goodness of getting people acclimated to seeing bikes on the streets, I feel that it is really safer for both cyclists and pedestrians to ride on the road where possible. As my fitness levels continue to increase, my average speeds are 18-20 m/h and that is really too fast to be going on many of the bike trails. And I've seen *lots* of other cyclists in the Houston area that are much faster riders than me.

--gordy

[Denny Koll]

All that is understandable, but I feel that once there are MUPs in a area, that at the least, all cyclists will be pressured onto them, and later possibly forced onto them. It is a slippery slope.

MUPs are un-needed, they already exist, they're called "ROADS"

It just gives folks an option. What pressure are you talking about? If some folks on comfort bikes get on the trail it will start to become illegal to ride on the roads? That's silly. You keep riding on the roads. Recruit people to join you. Become more inclusive and welcoming of people that have different cycling styles than you. It's all for the good.

[clancy98]

yeah that totally sucks that they are trying to improve biking facilities.


Maybe you should hit their protest gatherings with a firehose.

[HoustonGal]

You are hurting the cycling community with this attitude. Folks on comfort bikes are not on the lower rung of the cycling hierarchy ...are they? Get off your high horse.

I apologize if my original post read this way. I certainly don't want to discourage anyone from getting out there and enjoying their bike. And if I had a little kid on a bike, I would be sticking to the paths!

I guess I would more accurately describe my feelings as "dismayed". The paths are great for recreational riding, but fairly useless for actually going anywhere. In fact, one of the nicest paths in the city runs along the Buffalo Bayou. The darn thing is less than 2 miles from our neighborhood, yet the roads to get there are so intimidating to most people that hardly anyone actually rides to it. And the solution is not to make the roads more bike friendly, but to promise that someday, maybe, there will be another little bike path that hooks up to it. And that's now considered the only safe way to cycle.

It was a whine on my part, and I was curious as to how others felt about this. And I have tried to get people out and about with me. I've succeeded only once, and sadly, I think the traffic was just too much and I don't know if she'll come back for another ride.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

All that is understandable, but I feel that once there are MUPs in a area, that at the least, all cyclists will be pressured onto them, and later possibly forced onto them. It is a slippery slope.
Fine, you "feel" that way. Some other worry worts might "feel" that drinking milk is just the start of a slippery slope of drinking that leads to alcoholism and should therefore be discouraged.

Sounds like your dogmatic driven "feelings" are trumping your perception of reality.

[maddyfish]

You've never been told to "get on the bike trail"? I have, when I was riding on the road. Where there are bike trails, there are expectations by motorists that bikes will use them. In my city the city code reads that bicyclists must use the bike path if one exists. Luckily one does not exist in my city. But if it did I would be legally bound to ride it( along with comfort bikes, strollers, dog wakers, runners, walkers, ect) when possible instead of the road. That would be the end of 20+ mph rides.
My city can't be the only one like that in the country.

[maddyfish]

Where's the "dogma" in that? It is in my city code. Open your eyes.

[Denny Koll]

You've never been told to "get on the bike trail"? I have, when I was riding on the road. Where there are bike trails, there are expectations by motorists that bikes will use them. In my city the city code reads that bicyclists must use the bike path if one exists. Luckily one does not exist in my city. But if it did I would be legally bound to ride it( along with comfort bikes, strollers, dog wakers, runners, walkers, ect) when possible instead of the road. That would be the end of 20+ mph rides.
My city can't be the only one like that in the country.

So your solution is to do away with MUPs that other people want because in your own tunnel vision way of looking at things it would hurt your ability to ride where you want to ride?

That's selfish.


If the city code is unfair then work to change it. Don't penalize your fellow cyclists by working against MUPs in your area. You need to seperate the two issues. Why do your needs take priority over everyone else?

[JonboyDC]

I think that laws like that are uncommon, because bike trails are relatively new and uncommon. And I'm certain that the law you refer to only requires you to ride on a bike path when that path runs parallel to the road you are riding on. It doesn't prohibit you from using the overwhelming majority of streets that have no adjacent bike path. It's no different from a law that requires pedestrians to use a sidewalk where it exists, but allows them to walk on the shoulder of the road where no sidewalk exists.

I ride on street, in traffic when I need to do so to get where I'm going. But I find riding a trail to be more relaxing, and I use the trail when it goes where I'm going or when I'm just riding for riding's sake. More trails gives me more options to avoid cars and (usually, depending on the trail), have a more scenic ride.

[rajman]

I'm a little unclear about this proposed MUP. If it is an old railway bed, and it is relatively uninterupted - it seems to me that it should be quite easy to ride on in its current condition. I have ridden on many old railways before and they make for great riding.

They're not so good in a roadie, but a cx, hybrid or MTB should have no problem.

I agree with you that recreational paths are often useless for getting around, as they don't connect to anything you want to get to directly (office buildings, movie theatres, supermarkets, etc) - but they can provide a long connector between points that don't involve stop signs or traffic lights. I find that in city traffic in Calgary, almost half of my time seems to be spent waiting at lights - so I take the longer (but stop free) MUP's when convenient.

I think that the people who are protesting to get the MUP built are probably kidding themselves that pavement is all that is stopping them from cycling to work. If they were interested in doing it, they would probably have tried to already, as there is no way to avoid some traffic for most of them anyway. However, some people might try once the paving is done, and then play in traffic out of necessity.

It is quite likely, however, that a lot of the protesters would use the trail as a recreational cycling trail, which is of value in and of itself. I think your grumpiness might be coming from the fact that there are a whole bunch of people up in arms demanding a facility for a purpose that it is not necessary or even perhaps useful for, as you have already demonstrated.

[Brian Ratliff]

It starts with a 15 minute there-and-back ride along the trail. Then gas prices hit $4, and, well maybe, kinda sorta, might make sense to bike to work. Perhaps a day a week. Or just the one Saturday that makes sense with little traffic. One thing leads to another, and pretty soon, you're in the bike shop shopping for your first pair of lycra shorts. Then a road bike. Then a lessor road bike that can accept a rack. Then some panniers. And why not, why not ride every day? It saves wear and tear on the car and gas is not $5/gal and not getting cheaper.

That's why you don't advocate against paths. Advocate against restricting the right to the road. But the tradeoff is most of the time in people's minds and no more.

[bkaapcke]

I ride a paved, creekside trail that has underpasses for all the cross streets. It goes from the local foothills out to the edge of San Francisco Bay. No cars at all. It is such a pleasure to ride without cars, without drivers with attitudes, that I now refuse to ride the roads. My hearing is not what it used to be and my attitude is not great when it comes to jerk drivers. To avoid conflict or injury, I stick to the trail. You will like it too when this trail is done. bk

[LittleBigMan]

To give you a bit of background, I live in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood in Houston. Our residents like to get out and ride their comfort bikes in the evenings and weekends.

We have an old rail line that runs through the neighborhood, and the city has been promising to convert it into a paved hike-bike trail for, oh, 8 years now. Needless to say, it's still gravel and weeds. In the past month, there has been a neighborhood movement to force the city to finish the darn thing already. So protest marches are held and petitions are signed. The neighbors claim the trail is absolutely necessary to hook up with the rest of the city MUP system. "How else can we get out of our cars to make trips to downtown?" they cry. "This trail will let us link up to the trail system that goes to the medical center! Otherwise we'll just have to drive," they declare. "And just think how nice it will be to ride to Target!"

OK, this is all well and good, but the truth of the matter is, you CAN ride to these places. I ride 6.5 miles each way to the medical center to work most days. I ride my bike to the Target (it's a mile away, that's it). But in order to ride to the inner city destinations, you have to ride in traffic. And you have to go over or under an interstate. And I can understand why people are apprehensive, but seriously, it's not that hard. Traffic is usually pretty light. Take the lane if you're worried, there are plenty of other lanes for cars to use and go around ("But I'll be killed by the Houston drivers!"). There's even a bike lane on the way to the med center. ("But it's full of glass and debris!")

And so the MUP is presented as the only safe option. But what if everyone got out there on the busy streets and rode? What if instead of the 3-5 commuters in the morning and the 10-15 road bikers in the evening we had 50 or so neighborhood residents using the streets instead? Wouldn't the drivers get used to us? And why do we have to all squeeze on a little MUP path when we could all be using the streets like the vehicles we are?

I guess I just don't understand why most of my neighbors feel like begging for a bike path is the only way to cycle safely. If enough of us got out there and just rode, maybe we wouldn't need it. And I think the "bike path or nothing" just further marginalizes the utility/commuter bikers who really do share the road.
Wow.

[chipcom]

All that is understandable, but I feel that once there are MUPs in a area, that at the least, all cyclists will be pressured onto them, and later possibly forced onto them. It is a slippery slope.

MUPs are un-needed, they already exist, they're called "ROADS"

We have some very popular and expensive mups around here, yet there is ZERO pressure by lawmakers or groups to force cyclists to use them. Indeed, Ohio law was just amended to further clarify cyclists' rights on the road. I ride the road alongside the O&E towpath to and from work twice a day, along with many other cyclists who are commuting or training, while even more cyclists toodle along on the mup. MUPS do have a purpose, to serve the needs of those who do not wish to ride on the road for transportational or recreational purposes. Just as you don't want their preference forced upon you, why should you force your preference on them?

IMO, those who think they are going to convince Mom, with her kid in the trailer, mom and dad with their five kids on bikes and tag-a-longs, seniors who haven't been on a bike in decades and other people who simply do not want to deal with traffic in their cars, let alone on a bike, are living in a fantasy world. As long as the general population, drivers and cyclists alike, perceive the roadways as dangerous and full of rude, impatient people with no regard for anything but themselves, you are not going to convince that same population to ride a bike in traffic. That's just plain reality.

[chipcom]

You've never been told to "get on the bike trail"? I have, when I was riding on the road. Where there are bike trails, there are expectations by motorists that bikes will use them. In my city the city code reads that bicyclists must use the bike path if one exists. Luckily one does not exist in my city. But if it did I would be legally bound to ride it( along with comfort bikes, strollers, dog wakers, runners, walkers, ect) when possible instead of the road. That would be the end of 20+ mph rides.
My city can't be the only one like that in the country.

So in one breath you say that motorists have told you to get on the bike trail, then in the next you say that you don't have any bike trails?

Also, are you claiming that your city ordinance bans you from ALL roads if a bike path is present someplace within the city limits? If that is the case, yes, I believe it is the only city in the country that does so. What city is it, so we can take a look at the relevant ordinances?

Edit: You are from Cincinatti? Do you know that under Ohio law a bicycle is a legal vehicle and has the right to use the road? The following is applicable (bold added by me):


http://www.ohiobike.org/bicycle-law-digest.html

§ 4511.07. Local traffic regulations.
(A) Sections 4511.01 to 4511.78, 4511.99, and 4513.01 to 4513.37 of the Revised Code do not prevent local authorities from carrying out the following activities with respect to streets and highways under their jurisdiction and within the reasonable exercise of the police power:

(8) Regulating the operation of bicycles: provided that no such regulation shall be fundamentally inconsistent with the uniform rules of the road prescribed by this chapter and that no such regulation shall prohibit the use of bicycles on any public street or highway except as provided in section 4511.051 of the Revised Code;
(9) Requiring the registration and licensing of bicycles, including the requirement of a registration fee for residents of the local authority;

(B) No ordinance or regulation enacted under division (A)(4), (5), (6), (7), (8), or (10) of this section shall be effective until signs giving notice of the local traffic regulations are posted upon or at the entrance to the highway or part of the highway affected, as may be most appropriate.

Comment: The most important of the reforms passed in 2006 will require that any local regulations be consistent with the uniform rules of the road. In addition, signs are required of such local regulations. Unfortunately, there are still many ordinances inconsistent with uniform laws. Some of these bad ordinances mandate unsafe practices.

The slippery slope seems to be going in the opposite direction...making laws like you claim Cincy has go the way of the dinosaur.

[sbhikes]

The whole "if they build bike paths we'll be forced to use them" argument is silly. We have some excellent bike paths and nobody forces you to use them. You are just being a grump.

I've been living in the same town for over 40 years. For as long as I can remember they've been promising to build a pedestrian passage from one part of town across the freeway to another part. Sure, we can easily walk across the existing overpasses, but doing so can add miles to your journey. A big-box developer built a huge shopping mall and part of the deal for building on this pristine land and destroying some sensitive habitat was they had to build the pedestrian/cyclist overpass. Did they do it? No. And to make matters worse, the city redesigned the existing overpass so that it is now a cycling and pedestrian nightmare.

Don't fault these people for wanting an upgrade to their community with desirable amenities. Do you want only private development or stuff that belongs to everyone?

[ollo_ollo]

"The land is there? Instead of organizing protests, why arn't they organizing weekend construction parties? With the gravel bed already laid there is really nothing to do other than lay asphalt. This is a bike path, not a highway extension. All you realy need are a lot of people willing to shovel, a grader, and a roller"

One would think so & it makes sense to me, but our County is burdened with a cumbersome planning & permit process, so even a small but vocal opposition can convince the beaurocrats in County planning to derail a project. At a minimum, we would have years of public hearings, mini environmental impact studies, draft runoff & drainage plans, traffic impact studies, presentation of a landscape design to review boards etc.

Some years ago, one of the local churches got ahead of the planning process. They just rolled up their sleeves & put in additional paved parking to accomodate their rapid growth. Subsequently, the County forced them to tear it out & relandscape. Of course when they choose, projects can be and are fast tracked with requirements waived.

[bragi]

This whole thread, in my view, is driven by fear, or rather two fears:

1. The fear that novice bicyclists have of cars.
2. The fear of more experienced bicyclists that building more MUPs will move governments into forcing them from normal roads.

Both fears are unfounded. Once novice cyclists gain some experience, they quickly realize that riding a bike in traffic isn't much different from driving a car in traffic: yes, it's a pain sometimes, but only dangerous if you're an idiot or encounter an idiot. As for the fear of MUP's driving us from "real" roads: nonsense. There's no way on Earth that anyone can build enough MUPs to justify denying the use of regular roads by bicyclists. Given the fact that more people appear to be riding, based on my own observations, I do not think it's even politically possible to drive bicyclists from the roads at this point.

Personally, I have no trouble riding in traffic, among cars. I do it every day and feel totally comfortable sharing the road with those infernal machines. But I prefer not to. If an MUP will get me to my destination, I'll use it without hesitation. Cars, by their very nature, suck, and it's much more pleasant to travel in their absence.

[Scout!]

I live in Houston and I ride on the road every day. Houston has nice roads. They're wide and multi-laned. Plenty of room for everybody.

I agree with the OP that the world would be a better place if more people biked on the street. I sympathize with her exasperation toward the folks in the neighborhood who complain about what they haven't got instead of getting out and using what they do have.

I use MUPs when they suit me. That happens when they happen to be going the direction I want to go and I'm in a mood to take it easy and enjoy the weather. When I'm just interested in getting from place to place, I usually ignore them, since the entrances and exits are often tricky. (However, I do use the one in Memorial Park when I'm headed for Galleria area. That one is useful because it's long enough, without interuption, and avoids some ugly traffic. Without it, I would probably take a longer route, rather than riding on Memorial Drive itself.) For utilitarian cycling, MUPs won't ever be a substitute for roads.

But I don't think MUPs are bad. And I don't worry about the slippery slope. A bike path is not the Warsaw ghetto. More bike paths mean more people bicycling, which will bring more people cycling on the road. It will mean more people have first hand knowledge of bicycling, and that will change the political climate for the better.

[slowandsteady]

Street riding isn't for everyone. Some folks will never be comfortable riding on roads with cars whizzing by. I think it's nice that they can be provided with an alternative that makes them feel comfortable and gets them on their bikes.


It can certainly be stressful riding on a road. And if I rode my cruiser at 8 mph once a week for 30 minutes, I doubt I would do it on a road. A MUP is perfect for this kind of relaxed riding. Most people are not very skilled at riding a bike. By this I mean, they can't hold a line nor can they look behind them without swerving. These people don't belong on the street.

[LittleBigMan]

We have an old rail line that runs through the neighborhood, and the city has been promising to convert it into a paved hike-bike trail for, oh, 8 years now.
Ya, new path of that sort could be really nice, but waiting 8 years for it? Some of the kids who could have used it are working adults, now.

[Bikepacker67]

Because VC dogma dictates opposition by the VC zealots, that's why.

You do know that you're as bad as your nemesis, eh?

[sbhikes]

This whole thread, in my view, is driven by fear, or rather two fears:

1. The fear that novice bicyclists have of cars.
2. The fear of more experienced bicyclists that building more MUPs will move governments into forcing them from normal roads.

Both fears are unfounded. Once novice cyclists gain some experience, they quickly realize that riding a bike in traffic isn't much different from driving a car in traffic: yes, it's a pain sometimes, but only dangerous if you're an idiot or encounter an idiot. As for the fear of MUP's driving us from "real" roads: nonsense. There's no way on Earth that anyone can build enough MUPs to justify denying the use of regular roads by bicyclists. Given the fact that more people appear to be riding, based on my own observations, I do not think it's even politically possible to drive bicyclists from the roads at this point.

Personally, I have no trouble riding in traffic, among cars. I do it every day and feel totally comfortable sharing the road with those infernal machines. But I prefer not to. If an MUP will get me to my destination, I'll use it without hesitation. Cars, by their very nature, suck, and it's much more pleasant to travel in their absence.

+1. Well said.

[Helmet Head]

This whole thread, in my view, is driven by fear, or rather two fears:

1. The fear that novice bicyclists have of cars.
2. The fear of more experienced bicyclists that building more MUPs will move governments into forcing them from normal roads.

Both fears are unfounded. Once novice cyclists gain some experience, they quickly realize that riding a bike in traffic isn't much different from driving a car in traffic: yes, it's a pain sometimes, but only dangerous if you're an idiot or encounter an idiot.
(2) is nonsense. I don't know of anyone opposed to MUPs, much less opposed to them due to that fear.

(1) is true. I see grown people drive their bikes to parking lots at parks, ride their bikes only on MUPs, then drive home. I know, I do it too (for my daughter). But these are grownups for themselves. They're all dressed in their exercise clothes with their sit upright hybrids arriving on the bumper racks.

Then there are those who simply will not buy even get a bike due to their fear of cars, MUP or not.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

You do know that you're as bad as your nemesis, eh?
No, I don't know that at all. I do know that some dimwits can't tell the difference.

[chipcom]

(2) is nonsense. I don't know of anyone opposed to MUPs, much less opposed to them due to that fear.

All that is understandable, but I feel that once there are MUPs in a area, that at the least, all cyclists will be pressured onto them, and later possibly forced onto them. It is a slippery slope.


This quote is from this very thread. Pwned yourself again.

[bongo_x]

all this talk of how people's fear of riding in traffic is unfounded is silly in my opinion.

riding a bike in traffic is NOTHING like driving a car.
a bike is harder to see
drivers do not give you the respect they do other cars because it's not going to hurt their car if they hit you.
a fender bender when I'm in a car is going to slow down my day and be really annoying, on a bike it may kill me.

all this talk sounds like it's from people who have not actually been hit by a car. I was hit, and although it was very minor, it was eye opening. I was hit by someone pulling out of a parking lot. they couldn't have been going maybe 5 or 10mph? I was completely stunned by the force of the impact. I was laying on the ground, groggy, and I couldn't move for a while. the woman that hit me kept trying to establish that it wasn't her fault. she only once offered to help me, and then drove away leaving me still lying on the ground. I probably laid there for 10 minutes or so until I could get up and found no serious injury. I was sore for weeks, but that was it.
all I could think was "what could it possibly be like if that car was driving at normal speed?". it was barely moving when it hit me!

I continued to ride in traffic in Los Angeles for years after that, but slowly decided it just wasn't worth it.
people aren't afraid to ride in traffic because their ignorant, they're afraid because it's really dangerous and they may not be that skilled riders. most people just don't think it's worth risking their lives to ride to the store.

I will admit that I've lived in Los Angeles and Atlanta for the last 18 years, and those are not great cities to drive in, much less ride a bike, so my opinion might be different if I lived in a different city.

helmet head;

I'm not trying to insult you, but I would like to know where you can ride in traffic and reasonably expect to NOT encounter an idiot driver.

the argument that you drive your kid to the park to ride but it's wrong when others do it is really self centered and condescending. those stupid people who wear exercise clothes and ride a different kind of bike than you do are wrong! someone should stop them! they should get out in the street even if they have personally determined that it's not worth the risk and their skill levels are not up to it. of course if they had a child with them that would be totally different, for some reason that I can't follow.

I'm not saying that anyone should, or shouldn't ride in traffic. I'm saying each person should assess that for themselves and to tell someone else how they should be doing it is ridiculous.

some people would like to go out and ride their bikes. it seems there are other people who are upset by this, who think those people are doing it wrong and would like it done their way. this is the kind of thing that makes a lot of people think that "those bike riders" are nuts and are not the kind of people they want to listen to or be involved with.

bb

[thebankman]

Let them have their MUP. Riding on the local MUP in my area is more dangerous/slow/scary than riding in the street, what with joggers, other bikers and dogs oozing all over the path like the squids they are.

[Niles H.]

Street riding isn't for everyone. Some folks will never be comfortable riding on roads with cars whizzing by. I think it's nice that they can be provided with an alternative that makes them feel comfortable and gets them on their bikes.
+1

Also, I know a lot of people who would much rather spend their Sunday mornings out on a beautiful bike path, and away from cars. How many people would choose to go out on a morning walk alongside a busy road? There's an element of aesthetics involved here too.

Aside from being full of cars, busy roads are noisy and smelly and polluted.

Roadsides are also often littered with all kinds of unpleasantness, including garbage and roadkill. Many paths are substantially more pleasant.

[Niles H.]

It seems to me that individuals' freedom of choice is important here too.

If some people prefer to ride on the road, let them be free to do so.

For the others, why not have some good alternatives?

[remsav]

All that is understandable, but I feel that once there are MUPs in a area, that at the least, all cyclists will be pressured onto them, and later possibly forced onto them. It is a slippery slope.

MUPs are un-needed, they already exist, they're called "ROADS"

It's a MUP where people walk, jog, rollerblade, ski and yes bike on it.