One argument in favor of opposing them is that they will compromise cyclists' rights on the roads.

However, this does not actually seem to happen in many cases, though it does happen in some.

Wouldn't it be worth asking the question, for each specific case, whether or not any serious loss of rights would be likely to occur?

***
There may be people whose agenda involves getting bikes off the road; but they also seem to be in the minority. If an individual has had disproportionate exposure to these people, then that individual may well end up having an exaggerated perception of this as a problem.

Does anyone know how much of a problem this is? How strongly or widely or proportionately represented are these people in actual fact? And how often are they able to succeed in pushing their agenda (certainly there would often be opposition)?

***
There are many cyclists who prefer not to ride on roads. Perceived and misperceived dangers are factors in this; but there are other factors.

Some people dislike riding on roads because they find traffic distasteful -- noisy, unpleasant, smelly, litter-and-other-detritus-leaving, unhealthful and polluting.

Just as they would rather be riding on scenic backroads, they also prefer good, scenic bike paths. Few of them would picnic alongside a busy, noisy road. They would seek out an attractive, quiet park with trees and shade. The same impulse or preference is expressed in their choices for riding.

Many of these people simply don't ride -- or ride very little -- because they don't find the options that are available locally to be attractive or enjoyable.

Isn't getting people out of cars and onto bikes something that is worth considering here?

***
Also, rather than opposing the bike paths, couldn't alert activists be proactive in other ways -- acting to preserve or ensure (or even strengthen) cyclists' rights on the roadways, while at the same time supporting (or at least not opposing) added facilities?

Couldn't they be active in making sure that the process of building bike paths is steered or kept clear of the (unnecessary) adjunct tendency to limit cyclists' rights on roadways?

Moot point - bike paths exist and will continue to be funded and built because people want them. End of story. Hand-wringing, chicken-little 'advocates' need to start working within the realm of reality, rather than remaining cooped up in their ivory towers.

"One argument in favor of opposing them is that they will compromise cyclists' rights on the roads."

That's a ridiculous argument, in my opinion. We need to reject any laws that might compromise our rights on the roads instead of opposing bike paths.

"One argument in favor of opposing them is that they will compromise cyclists' rights on the roads."

That's a ridiculous argument, in my opinion. We need to reject any laws that might compromise our rights on the roads instead of opposing bike paths.

Absolutely.

I think bike paths are great. There's only one nearby my area that I know of. I have not seen anyone forcing the bikes that choose to ride along the adjacent roadway to use the path. If I were riding in that area though, I likely would choose the bike path just because it's relaxing and uncrowded.

No. The beauty of the bike is that you can use it places that cars simply cannot go. Road, bike path, MUP, BL, trail, whatever. It's all good. Well, maybe not sidewalks...

One argument in favor of opposing them is that they will compromise cyclists' rights on the roads.

However, this does not actually seem to happen in many cases, though it does happen in some.

Wouldn't it be worth asking the question, for each specific case, whether or not any serious loss of rights would be likely to occur?

***
There may be people whose agenda involves getting bikes off the road; but they also seem to be in the minority. If an individual has had disproportionate exposure to these people, then that individual may well end up having an exaggerated perception of this as a problem.

Does anyone know how much of a problem this is? How strongly or widely or proportionately represented are these people in actual fact? And how often are they able to succeed in pushing their agenda (certainly there would often be opposition)?

***
There are many cyclists who prefer not to ride on roads. Perceived and misperceived dangers are factors in this; but there are other factors.

Some people dislike riding on roads because they find traffic distasteful -- noisy, unpleasant, smelly, litter-and-other-detritus-leaving, unhealthful and polluting.

Just as they would rather be riding on scenic back roads, they also prefer good, scenic bike paths. Few of them would picnic alongside a noisy road. They would seek out an attractive, quiet park with trees and shade. The same impulse or preference is expressed in their choices for riding.

Many of these people simply don't ride -- or ride very little -- because they don't find the options that are available locally to be attractive or enjoyable.

Isn't getting people out of cars and onto bikes something that is worth considering here?

***
Also, rather than opposing the bike paths, couldn't alert activists be proactive in other ways -- acting to preserve or ensure (or even strengthen) cyclists' rights on the roadways, while at the same time supporting (or at least not opposing) added facilities?

Couldn't they be active in making sure that the process of building bike paths is steered or kept clear of the (unnecessary) adjunct tendency to limit cyclists' rights on roadways?

The analysis is so simple that there is really little need to discuss it. The only bike paths that cyclists are required to use are those that are parallel and close to a roadway, and that is only in those areas in which there are mandatory-sidepath laws. And the cure of that is easy, get rid of the mandatory-sidepath law, which laws have been losing favor and have been being repealed for the last thirty years, since I and Dan Burden and some others started the campaign to repeal them.

However, there remains the question of safety. Every bike path connects to the road system (you don't take a train to the path, or sail your boat). In general, such intersections are more difficult to design properly and the cyclist has to use extra care and suffer some delay to handle them properly. If the intersection between road and path is also an intersection between road and road, the difficulties are much greater. If, also, the intersections between path and road system are frequent, then it may not be worth the extra bother and delay, required for safety, to try to ride such paths at normal road speeds. If, also, the path at that particular time is well occupied with other traffic, then the probably chaotic nature of that traffic may well make it not worth the extra bother, caution, and even more delay that is required to ride safely in such traffic.

I don't know what more there is to say.

Every time we let a vehicle pass there is a little bit of compromise. But compromise allows the city to function and allows cyclists to function in the city. The trick is not to eliminate compromise but to learn how to work safely within it.

--Robert Hurst


To me, your siggy says it all.

In reality, for traffic to function well, there has to be a recognition that everyone is trying to go somewhere. Motorists need to recognize that other motorists, and people on bikes, scooters, and motorcycles etc are just trying to go places. They need to do what they can to facilitate everyone moving. People on bikes need to realize this too and do what they can to make life easier for everyone. What needs to be fostered is an atmosphere of cooperation on the streets.

Some might argue that this is a pipe dream, but I say no, not really. One person might not be able to change the whole mess, but one person can do a lot to ensure that their own interactions in traffic are peaceful.

What goes around, comes around.

The analysis is so simple that there is really little need to discuss it. The only bike paths that cyclists are required to use are those that are parallel and close to a roadway, and that is only in those areas in which there are mandatory-sidepath laws. And the cure of that is easy, get rid of the mandatory-sidepath law, which laws have been losing favor and have been being repealed for the last thirty years, since I and Dan Burden and some others started the campaign to repeal them.

However, there remains the question of safety. Every bike path connects to the road system (you don't take a train to the path, or sail your boat). In general, such intersections are more difficult to design properly and the cyclist has to use extra care and suffer some delay to handle them properly. If the intersection between road and path is also an intersection between road and road, the difficulties are much greater. If, also, the intersections between path and road system are frequent, then it may not be worth the extra bother and delay, required for safety, to try to ride such paths at normal road speeds. If, also, the path at that particular time is well occupied with other traffic, then the probably chaotic nature of that traffic may well make it not worth the extra bother, caution, and even more delay that is required to ride safely in such traffic.

I don't know what more there is to say.

Well said. :D

The analysis is so simple that there is really little need to discuss it. The only bike paths that cyclists are required to use are those that are parallel and close to a roadway, and that is only in those areas in which there are mandatory-sidepath laws. And the cure of that is easy, get rid of the mandatory-sidepath law, which laws have been losing favor and have been being repealed for the last thirty years, since I and Dan Burden and some others started the campaign to repeal them.

forget it....why do I even read this forum anymore?

Bike paths can increase the value of your property if you live near a nice one, and they can make for nicer, quicker, easier connections to other parts of town. No reason to oppose them. What you should oppose are mandatory use laws.

Niles H.,
Which cyclist are out right opposing bike paths? Some cyclist oppose dangerous designs (all of us should).

The people I see opposing bike paths are homeowners who fear "crime and decreased property values". As well as cities/states that do not want to spend the money.

Niles H.,
Which cyclist are out right opposing bike paths? Some cyclist oppose dangerous designs (all of us should)....

I've come across these sorts of arguments; I'm sure others have too.

Nobody has proven bike paths to be safer........

(does anyone ever examine notions of and assumptions about proof?, and the questionable association of rationality with statistics?)

There is no need for them.......

If people could just get past their 'irrational' fears........

The intent is to get cyclists off the roads........

They reinforce 'cyclist-inferiority' notions.......

and so on.

I use a bike path every day to get to work.

Nobody will run me over in a car on the bike path
Cops won't harass me for listening to my iPod
I can actually hear the iPod
I see children on their way to school -- lots of them (when was the last time you saw lots of children riding bikes on their way to school?)
I see lots of adults riding to work or just exercising
I see ducks, hawks, kites (the bird kind), crows, cedar waxwings, gold finches and even Western Tanagers, herons, egrets and more
I don't see any cars at all for miles and miles
I don't see any traffic signals and only one, no make that two stop signs for 5 miles (compared to the 30 intersections I would see on the main road)
I can ride as slow or as fast as I want (usually pretty slow)
I can ride in the dirt if I want
If I stop and look over the bridge I can probably see a turtle

What's not to like about this?

bike paths in Seattle serve as valuable transportational cooridors for bicyclists east, north and south into the city.

Even vehicular cyclists use bike paths in seattle.

Give me bike lanes or give me death (under the tire of a F250).

Not really that extreme...just wanted to say something amusing, really.

I ride a bike lane to work. I also ride an MUP to work. I also take the lane to work. Depends on my route. They all work. There's no real reason to discount one over the other except for personal preferences (i.e. I prefer to ride really fast, avoid the MUP; I prefer to ride relaxed, take the MUP or BL; I prefer to take some technical routes, take the BL-less road.)

I use a bike path every day to get to work.

Nobody will run me over in a car on the bike path
Cops won't harass me for listening to my iPod
I can actually hear the iPod
I see children on their way to school -- lots of them (when was the last time you saw lots of children riding bikes on their way to school?)
I see lots of adults riding to work or just exercising
I see ducks, hawks, kites (the bird kind), crows, cedar waxwings, gold finches and even Western Tanagers, herons, egrets and more
I don't see any cars at all for miles and miles
I don't see any traffic signals and only one, no make that two stop signs for 5 miles (compared to the 30 intersections I would see on the main road)
I can ride as slow or as fast as I want (usually pretty slow)
I can ride in the dirt if I want
If I stop and look over the bridge I can probably see a turtle

What's not to like about this?


Sounds wonderful.

I don't know of any such paths here in San Diego... there may be one down in the south bay... but I don't live or work in that area.

The only paths I have access to are noisy and most are narrow...

The best path in the area is quite wide and about 12 miles long, but with 3 intersections along the way, one of which is quite a pain. The path is along a freeway, so there is no break from the noise at all. Now don't get me wrong, I like that path for the simple fact that it is quite wide and I can go quite fast and I can get in a 20 mile workout at lunch on that path... but it offers me no transportational utility. That path offers a fair example of what a transporational path could be... parts of it are below grade and avoid intersections... with auto overpasses over head. It even has on ramps and offramps for cyclists. But it doesn't go where I need to go. (some folks do use it for transit though). So for me it is just a workout place.

Most of the other paths in the area are little more than sidewalks. I may chose to use them simply because they are shortcuts in some cases. (the Rose Canyon path as the best example).

The fact is, to enjoy a very scenic route, as you mention, I would probably ride on PCH, which IS an urban hiway with loads of different "moods."

I have only experienced similar situations as you mention, on back country roads... ages ago, before indian casinos. I would see riders on horses, but no kids going to school... these are country hiways. Kids around here ride on sidewalks and in canyons.

I suspect the very scene you describe is a daily event on the regular streets of Cary NC. And probably many small towns across America.

The fact is the paths around here are generally "poor," and the through surface streets tend to be mulilaned and fast. Not exactly the conditions for kids riding to school (which is quite a shame) nor to hear birds singing, or for slipping on the ipod and "drifting away."

What you have is unique. Too bad it doesn't exist everywhere.

BTW I always enjoyed cycling in SB... it was just a bit nicer there... from wide bike lanes to well tuned traffic light loops to your aforementioned path... there is a certain positive approach to cycling in SB that is very encouraging to cyclists.

I oppose law that limits bikes to bike paths. My own city has a law that limits bikes to using a bike path where one is available. Thankfully there are no bike paths here.

I oppose law that limits bikes to bike paths. My own city has a law that limits bikes to using a bike path where one is available. Thankfully there are no bike paths here.
Shouldn't you and your fellow cyclists in Cincinnati focus your efforts on both repealing such a bad law and having bike paths built instead of being thankful there are no bike paths?

What you have is unique. Too bad it doesn't exist everywhere.
Yes, however, some would have me join them in opposition because they don't exist everywhere, or cannot, and that would be stupid.

There has to be a reason why slum (yeah, that bad) housing costs a million bucks in Santa Barbara. Must be what's outdoors.

Yes, however, some would have me join them in opposition because they don't exist everywhere, or cannot, and that would be stupid.



I would much rather the positives of SB cycling were spread far and wide.

......Sounds wonderful.


BTW I always enjoyed cycling in (Santa Barbara)... it was just a bit nicer there... from wide bike lanes to well tuned traffic light loops to your aforementioned path... there is a certain positive approach to cycling in SB that is very encouraging to cyclists.

yes, there is a positive, encouraging side to bicycling infrastructure if implemented in thoughtful ways. it's absolutely shameful bad people like john forester are out to ****** and attempt to dismantle positive effects of cycling infrastructure in communities like santa barbara.

that guy should be ashamed of himself. the bicycling community should ostracize his message. maintaining our rights to road cycling can be done concurrent with building bike infrastructure in communities.

the two (right to road cycling, bike infrastructure) are NOT mutually exclusive.

yes, there is a positive, encouraging side to bicycling infrastructure if implemented in thoughtful ways. it's absolutely shameful bad people like john forester are out to ****** and attempt to dismantle positive effects of cycling infrastructure in communities like santa barbara.

that guy should be ashamed of himself. the bicycling community should ostracize his message. maintaining our rights to road cycling can be done concurrent with building bike infrastructure in communities.

the two (right to road cycling, bike infrastructure) are NOT mutually exclusive.

I oppose bicycle transportation programs that mislead cyclists and prospective cyclists with false promises of safety without skill, and promises to motorists that cyclists will stay out of their way, which are the content of the superstition that justifies the present bikeway program. I support means that encourage lawful, competent cycling. If the bicycle advocates could produce a program that really did encourage lawful, competent cycling, I would have been supporting them; it is their insistence on scientifically false devices that keeps us apart.

:roflmao: you really are deluded, john.

and you should be ashamed of your work opposing community bike infrastructure in cities like santa barbara.

:roflmao: you really are deluded, john.

and you should be ashamed of your work opposing community bike infrastructure in cities like santa barbara.

I certainly have no problem opposing poor designs... which I abhor in anything... And that only makes sense.

But opposing on principal, things that really do work, is just being foolish.

I've come across these sorts of arguments; I'm sure others have too.

Nobody has proven bike paths to be safer........

(does anyone ever examine notions of and assumptions about proof?, and the questionable association of rationality with statistics?)

There is no need for them.......

If people could just get past their 'irrational' fears........

The intent is to get cyclists off the roads........

They reinforce 'cyclist-inferiority' notions.......

and so on.
You really did not answer my question, Which cyclist are out right opposing bike paths? Some cyclist oppose dangerous designs (all of us should).

JF, HH, myself and the others here, that many have falsely labeled as "anti-facilities", have repeatedly explained how we have supported the good design for bike paths and many specific bike paths that are so designed.

What you provided is mostly responses to the claim that the roads are not safe to ride on, or cyclist do not belong on the roads. These are two completely different discussions, no matter how many people try and mix them.

As to highway side paths, the are generally dangerously designed with many poor crossings and wrong direction riding. What is wrong with opposing the dangerous design of such paths?

Maybe you do have some cyclist in your area that oppose bike paths, but I suspect it is home owners and opposition to tax spending that are the real anti bike path people. Those are the people that I have seen oppose bike paths in the many states that I have lived in.

Please name the BF members that out and out oppose well designed bike paths!

maybe he means bike lanes.

This is like the third thread, that when I ask a simple question of the OP, things go silent.

This is like the third thread, that when I ask a simple question of the OP, things go silent.
Btw, what is your answer to the OP question: "Should bike paths (in general) be opposed?"

I would assume that since you repeated your question of: Which cyclist are out right opposing bike paths? that you believe that bike paths (in general) should not be opposed. Correct?

This is like the third thread, that when I ask a simple question of the OP, things go silent.

maybe he has you on ignore. I used to.

Btw, what is your answer to the OP question: "Should bike paths (in general) be opposed?"

I would assume that since you repeated your question of: Which cyclist are out right opposing bike paths? that you believe that bike paths (in general) should not be opposed. Correct?
My response in post 25 should have been sufficient to make it clear (at least to most readers here) that I do not oppose bike paths (in general):
"JF, HH, myself and the others here, that many have falsely labeled as "anti-facilities", have repeatedly explained how we have supported the good design for bike paths and many specific bike paths that are so designed."

maybe he has you on ignore. I used to.
Yes, I know there are many people on BF who wish to hear only one side of a discussion.

this is off topic, but how about on road bike lanes, CB, that are well designed and implemented?

you ARE anti-facilities. you complain about the bike paths in your community. you complain about bike lanes. you are anti facility.

personally, I found the bike lanes approaching Lahaina quite expeditious to pass miles of stop-n-go, crawling traffic anytime in the afternoons on Maui.

My response in post 25 should have been sufficient to make it clear (at least to most readers here) that I do not oppose bike paths (in general):
I didn't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth.

So no one here knows of anyone on this forum who thinks that bike paths (in general) should be opposed.

this is off topic, but how about on road bike lanes, CB, that are well designed and implemented?

you ARE anti-facilities. you complain about the bike paths in your community. you complain about bike lanes. you are anti facility.

personally, I found the bike lanes approaching Lahaina quite expeditious to pass miles of stop-n-go, crawling traffic anytime in the afternoons on Maui.
Bike lanes are a different subject and is off topic in this thread. I am still waiting for you to send me that safe, well designed bike lane plan for intersections that I can take to the City Council. If you have one Bek, send it.

The only negative thing I have noted about a bike path here, is that the city has put in a poorly designed and dangerous bike path on the North Shore. That is not anti bike path, that is anti bad design.

Many of your post imply that you support any bike path and any bike lane, no matter how poorly and dangerously they are designed. Which is anti-cyclist.

As far as the bike lane to Lahaina, why did you not note that there few, if any, intersection until you get into Lahina and that it really would not matter if you called that part of the road a bike lane, a shoulder, or a wide outside lane; it would be easy to filter through the stop & go traffic.

I didn't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth.

So no one here knows of anyone on this forum who thinks that bike paths (in general) should be opposed.
Apparently not, regardless of Bek's repeated rantings.

Apparently not, regardless of Bek's repeated rantings.
Bike lanes are a different subject
Bek's talking about something else, according to you.

Bek's talking about something else, according to you.
Taking things out of context, are we?

Last year Arizona enacted a law requiring motorists to give 3' clearance to cyclists. In that same law, they imposed fines for infractions including one of $1000 in the event of death or injury to the cyclist. However, the law waives the fines if there is a path seperated from the road that the cyclist could have been using.

There are some paths (MUP) available and useable for high speed cycling in my area. I tend to use those. Others are not so useable and I avoid them. I suppose though, that were I lying there dead or injured, the level of fine would have little meaning to me. It just seems as though the suggestion is that if there is a path, it is open season on the cyclist. I know that isn't really the case. All the other laws against running people down remain on the books. The language seemed a little strange though.

In answer to the OP, no, I do not oppose lanes, paths or other facilities which make things safer, more convenient, or which serve as reminders that bicycles are part of the mix. I still want the right to ride the roads though.

Taking things out of context, are we?
How so?

Last year Arizona enacted a law requiring motorists to give 3' clearance to cyclists.
The law has been in place >6 years (passed in 2000)

The law has been in place >6 years (passed in 2000)

I had no idea there even WAS a law like this. probably most motorists don't either...

I had no idea there even WAS a law like this. probably most motorists don't either...
ARS 28-735 (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00735.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS)

There are bumper stickers and jerseys that adverstise it. And new road signs along Pecos.

Here is a history of it:
http://azbikelaw.org/articles/ThreeFoot.html

This law has been on the books far longer - Pretty much everyone knows it whether they have studied the laws or not:

"28-723. Overtaking a vehicle on the left
The following rules govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction:
1. The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left of the vehicle at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle."

If you want to discuss 3' passing laws, three are numerous threads about such on BF A&S already. Some recently active such as:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=304262
Al

Shouldn't you and your fellow cyclists in Cincinnati focus your efforts on both repealing such a bad law and having bike paths built instead of being thankful there are no bike paths?

Exactly.

I had no idea there even WAS a law like this. probably most motorists don't either...

You can just make a blanket statement that most motorists don't know any of the laws regarding cylists on the road... including the rights of cyclists to even use the road.

Most motorists know to stop on red, and at those octagon thingys; to stay between the lines, and to pretty much not drive much faster than the next guy... and that about sums up the laws known to most motorists.

Think I am BSing you... try talking to motorists some time about "bikes on the road." Don't mention you are a cyclist and just listen to some of the misconceptions that spew out... My favorite is about cyclists not paying for the roads they use...

What you have is unique. Too bad it doesn't exist everywhere.

Yes, however, some would have me join them in opposition because they don't exist everywhere, or cannot, and that would be stupid.

There has to be a reason why slum (yeah, that bad) housing costs a million bucks in Santa Barbara. Must be what's outdoors.

Slight disagreement on the uniqueness: there are other places with fine bike paths. I have ridden some of the paths in and around Santa Barbara, and they are as described. The area can be beautiful, and it demonstrates some of the many potentials that bike paths have. Other areas also have much potential, and fine weather at times; and you don't need a perfect or near-perfect climate to enjoy nature and these sorts of rides.

I'm sure the beautiful bike paths in and around Santa Barbara (and some other cities and towns) did not just happen. It took some vision, design sensitivity, and work.

***
I spoke with a professor there who said that he wouldn't be riding at all if not for the path. He found it very attractive and relaxing, and it was a highly valued part of his life. He mentioned how much he valued it as a way to start and end the days.

He was in late middle age, and had some health concerns. He said it was a great relief not to be driving or riding in traffic, which he found tense.

***
[Other people prefer the roads there, and they are free to follow their preferences. It seems entirely possible to respectfully support the various individualities and individual needs of different cyclists among us (there is sometimes a tendency to forget that all of these are not the same), and to strengthen rights and opportunities for all of us.]

In response to someone above, your question about individuals is not really my primary concern. My primary concern in this thread is with the substance and and not with individuals.

There was a quote in another thread about bike paths being a threat to cyclists' road rights.

I've seen this argument before, in slightly differing variations on the same theme.

It was 'clear' to the author that a future point would be reached (if bike paths continued to proliferate) at which bikes would be relegated to the paths -- that they/we would lose rights on the road.

And therefore (so the reasoning (from that (probably inaccurate) conclusion) goes), we should oppose bike paths before they reach the point where we lose our rights.

In response to someone above, your question about individuals is not really my primary concern. My primary concern in this thread is with the substance and and not with individuals.

There was a quote in another thread about bike paths being a threat to cyclists' road rights.

I've seen this argument before, in slightly differing variations on the same theme.

It was 'clear' to the author that a future point would be reached (if bike paths continued to proliferate) at which bikes would be relegated to the paths -- that they/we would lose rights on the road.

And therefore (so the reasoning (from that (probably inaccurate) conclusion) goes), we should oppose bike paths before they reach the point where we lose our rights.

As it is the "freewayafication" of surface streets along with the 85 percentile rule will probably eventually render most streets to the point where it will be quite uncomfortable to ride a bicycle upon them... along with walling in these boulevards to isolate the road noise from the gated communities... put all that together and eventually the only place to ride will be in the downtown corridor... or on isolated paths which are actually designed for human scale instead of auto scale.

It won't be laws that push us off the streets... it will be the outrageous driving conditions that will do it... at least here in the west. It will actually be safer on freeways, which at least have wide shoulders.

As it is the "freewayafication" of surface streets along with the 85 percentile rule will probably eventually render most streets to the point where it will be quite uncomfortable to ride a bicycle upon them... along with walling in these boulevards to isolate the road noise from the gated communities... put all that together and eventually the only place to ride will be in the downtown corridor... or on isolated paths which are actually designed for human scale instead of auto scale.

It won't be laws that push us off the streets... it will be the outrageous driving conditions that will do it... at least here in the west. It will actually be safer on freeways, which at least have wide shoulders.

I was surprised when I rode along the shoulder of I-5. It wasn't nearly as bad as I thought, and it wasn't nearly as bad as some of the other roads (between Newport Beach and San Diego).

PCH near Newport Beach during rush hour was a nightmare. I don't blame the cyclists who prefer to avoid it (either because of the stress, the various dangers, the exhaust, or the noise).

I-5 (strangely) was a great relief -- no door zones with dense, aggressive and fast motorists close on the left; no stop lights; no driveways; no intersections... -- many, many fewer threats and dangers. Life was simplified and it was actually relatively relaxing on that wide, smoothe, well-graded shoulder of I-5.

"I was surprised when I rode along the shoulder of I-5."

Isn't it illegal to ride on the freeway?

Isn't it illegal to ride on the freeway?
I dunno 'bout I-5, but there are many freeways in the US (perhaps primarily in the West) along which one is permitted to cycle as long as one stays in the shoulder. Fine riding often too.

Al