Should cities plan for elite trained bike riders or members of the general public?

[Bekologist]

In design of public space, should communities consider design for 'trained' street cyclists or members of the general public?

In other words, should cities plan for trips to be taken only by LCI-trained cyclists - 'every lane is a bike lane', or plan for anyone of the general public that wants to hop on a bike? is it possible to design for both?

[damnable]

My knee jerk reaction is to plan for trained cyclists, and put more effect into training non-trained hop-on-bikers.

[derath]

I would say cities should plan their designed around the lowest common denominator. I would love to see areas be safe enough for kids to ride their bikes to school again.

Serious cyclists should plan to get "trained" so that they are not constrained to only the areas designed for cyclists (it would suck to only be able to bike up and down the one road with a bike lane...)

Now I don't necessarily mean that all cyclists need to take some training class either. Many of us (me included) learned on our own. Others with a greater fear of traffic etc might benefit from some sort of formal training.

-D

[maddyfish]

Both use the same thing.

[chipcom]

I did the elite thing in the Corps...once in a lifetime is enough

[genec]

In design of public space, should communities consider design for 'trained' street cyclists or members of the general public?

In other words, should cities plan for trips to be taken only by LCI-trained cyclists - 'every lane is a bike lane', or plan for anyone of the general public that wants to hop on a bike? is it possible to design for both?

Well, the road system and our system of licensing drivers at least assures us of some minimal training for that set of road users... is it too much to expect at least minimal training for other road users?

Granted, drivers are "piloting" vehicles that weigh thousands of pounds, and have a potential for damage to others... and as someone eloquently once put it: Should I need a license to move about under my own power?

Further, as most cyclists are indeed drivers (at least in the US) are they not already minimally trained?

Forester et. al. would have us believe that only "elite" trained cyclists should be on the road... seeking to move at their highest possible speed. But the reality is that one need not seek speed to accomplish transportation... we don't for instance run everywhere we might walk...

[John E]

If "designing for members of the general public" means what I think it means, including meandering, jogger-clogged paths, right-hook and left-cross opportunities at every intersection, a maximum safe speed of 10mph, etc., I want no part of it. If "designing for members of the general public" means traffic calming of or bypasses around high-speed free merges, diverges, and unions, count me in. If "designing for members of the general public" includes lateral separation (wide smooth shoulders, wide outer lanes, bike lanes, etc.) on prime arterials, count me in. If "designing for members of the general public" includes bike lanes or bike boxes to the right of right-turn-only or right-turn-optional lanes at intersections, get me out of here.

You are creating a dichotomy which is not universally true. When the City of Solana Beach built a MUP between Coast Highway 101 and the railroad, they originally intended for it to replace the Class II bike lane. Fortunately, true cycling advocates prevailed, and we kept our Class II and got the Class I next to it. This is the ideal solution, but of course it takes up a fair bit of real estate.

[mandovoodoo]

The general public seems likely to be traveling by a mix of micro cars, motorcycles, scooters and bicycles. Cities should be planning for that mix on the roads by education and design.

The "general public" pretty soon picks up speed and skills when using a bicycle all the time.

The "elite" cyclists (who are they? am I they? I gotz a funny plastic bike?) don't need design and planning any more than the general public. Design good, functional, simple, easily understood, and well marked roads. Educate people to use them. Work to create an ethic of cooperation and safety, rather than the ethic of me me me want my cell phone it's my road that our ads and culture currently seem to promote.

[walter231]

Most of the general public doesn't ride. Some of the general public rides on the left and/or sidewalks, inventing nameless and often dangerous impromptu maneuvers to get out of the pickles that inevitably result. Others ride more or less properly but haven't yet learned the dangers of passing on the right, riding too close to curbs and parked cars, taking left turns from the right side of the street, running lights and stop signs, etc. So I think that designing public space to accommodate the general public plopped onto bikes would have to mean designing it to exclude all other vehicular traffic and pedestrians. Not really feasible.

On the other hand, keeping in mind the needs of experienced vehicular-style cyclists when designing roads and streets might just encourage more of the public to ride bikes, and do it in a safe and competent fashion. Mainly this means making lanes wide enough for the anticipated traffic speed and volume, traffic-calming when necessary, and avoiding the freeway-style multi-lane monsters with lots of on and off-ramps that encourage motorists to swerve around a lot and take turns at high speeds. Fewer potholes might help too.

[randya]

both

[mandovoodoo]

I thought I was part of the general public. I happen to be part of the obey traffic laws general public, which seems to annoy a certain small but visible part of the jerk public.

The part of the "general public" that doesn't use bicycles on the road appropriately just needs education and a bit of reminding of what to do when encountering a bicycle and what to do when they ride one.

I don't have any problem with segregated facilities for actually riding. I'd like a design speed of at least 15 mph etc. I wouldn't mind highway funds going into that type of corridor. Just like I don't have problems with highway funds going into HOV lanes. Think of it as building low, human-powered lanes. I don't even have a problem sharing those lanes with 49 cc scooters limited to 35 mph.

I don't have a problem with MUPs so long as they're designed rather than simply wedged into inappropriate places creating needless hazards. I do have a problem funding these with highway moneys.

But I still believe that simply making our existing roadways appropriate for all users is a better use of funds. WOL and the like.

[rando]

sure you can design for both.

[genec]

I do have a problem funding these with highway moneys.



Why?

Highway funds came out of the general tax revue that we all, cyclists, motorists, pedestrians, alike "contribute" to, through our income taxes... why can't transportation funds be used for any and all forms of transportation?

Gas tax does not build highways... contrary to commonly held beliefs. Gas tax does tend to go to maintenance of highways... but it takes a lot more money to build a freeway.

[genec]

If "designing for members of the general public" means traffic calming of or bypasses around high-speed free merges, diverges, and unions, count me in. If "designing for members of the general public" includes lateral separation (wide smooth shoulders, wide outer lanes, bike lanes, etc.) on prime arterials, count me in.


:beer: :beer: :beer:

Designing for the general public means including all of us when envisioning public road designs... not just "race car" freeway drivers.

[joejack951]

Seeing as I have no formal training as a cyclist, and I have not found a road yet that I can't figure out how to ride a bicycle on, I don't think roads need much redesigning. I think a lot of attitudes need adjusting though. Sucks that it's so much harder to make that happen than it is to paint lines.

[Torrilin]

I'm a trained rider. I know how to do "fearsomely difficult" things like signal turns, stop at stop signs and use turn lanes (along with a variety of more advanced skills). I am not "elite" as nothing I do on a bike is particularly difficult, and it's not done at great speed. Elite and trained don't automatically go together. I *am* a member of the general public (have driver's license, am native citizen of my country etc).

I find road design tends to be pretty careless about pedestrian safety, particularly for pedestrians with various disabilities. As I walk a lot and have some minor disabilities, this displeases me. I find road design tends to be pretty careless of driver safety. I don't drive much anymore, but this still displeases me as many people drive. Also, road designs and rules tend to encourage careless driving, which is not a good idea at all.

Bike facilities in Madison demonstrate thoughtful solutions in some places, and really moronic design in others. The net effect is pretty good for me, but I am trained. Since an untrained individual doesn't know what to do with half the facilities, they have much more trouble. It's pretty common to see an adult ride down the sidewalk traveling in the same direction as a good bike lane (no parking permitted on that side of the street, no bus traffic, no directives to get right hooked, no tire hazards, no idiot drivers using it for standing). If I'm a pedestrian, I get annoyed since this means I got buzzed by someone on a bike. If I'm on my bike (in the bike lane), I get annoyed because of all the pedestrians getting buzzed who don't deserve it. It's also common to see cyclists riding the wrong way on bike paths.

Cyclists aren't the only ones I see making mistakes on the roads. I see plenty of drivers and pedestrians make mistakes as well. So far, I've always had time to stop before someone else's mistake became my medical problem.

[mandovoodoo]

Why?

Highway funds came out of the general tax revue that we all, cyclists, motorists, pedestrians, alike "contribute" to, through our income taxes... why can't transportation funds be used for any and all forms of transportation?

Gas tax does not build highways... contrary to commonly held beliefs. Gas tax does tend to go to maintenance of highways... but it takes a lot more money to build a freeway.

I have a problem with funds earmarked for highways going to recreational facilities in general. Not roads through recreational facilities, but the facilities themselves. MUPs seem to be recreational facilities. At least the ones I've seen.

[genec]

I have a problem with funds earmarked for highways going to recreational facilities in general. Not roads through recreational facilities, but the facilities themselves. MUPs seem to be recreational facilities. At least the ones I've seen.

Excuse me... recreational facilities??? RECREATIONAL FACILITIES??? :eek:

Where in the heck do you get the idea that driving a bike to work or to shopping or to where ever is recreation? Next you'll be telling me that bicycles are toys...


Perhaps the problem with your local MUPs is that they ARE recreational facilities... designed by parks departments. Perhaps it is high time that well designed bicycle facilities are built... for transportation.

[Tabor]

My knee jerk reaction is to plan for trained cyclists, and put more effect into training non-trained hop-on-bikers.

+1

But then again I think drivers should be trained....

[genec]

Seeing as I have no formal training as a cyclist, and I have not found a road yet that I can't figure out how to ride a bicycle on, I don't think roads need much redesigning. I think a lot of attitudes need adjusting though. Sucks that it's so much harder to make that happen than it is to paint lines.

OK start with the motorists... as frankly I have no problem riding on any road anywhere. But motorists have problems with me and my fellow cyclists being there...

No paint needed... just a realization that cyclists have rights to the road to use them in the same manner as anyone else needing to go somewhere.

[mandovoodoo]

Excuse me... recreational facilities??? RECREATIONAL FACILITIES??? :eek:

Where in the heck do you get the idea that driving a bike to work or to shopping or to where ever is recreation? Next you'll be telling me that bicycles are toys...


Perhaps the problem with your local MUPs is that they ARE recreational facilities... designed by parks departments. Perhaps it is high time that well designed bicycle facilities are built... for transportation.

That's the exact situation with the MUPs I've seen here in Maryville & Lenoir City, and with the ones in Knoxville. At least the ones in Knoxville go somewhere. But they're mainly full of a quite dangerous mix of "traffic" and weren't apparently conceived of as realistic commuting alternatives.

So that's where I get that ridiculous idea.

As you point out, well designed bicycle facilities should be built for transportation. I've just not seen that.

And please don't be such a pompous dick in the future. Raises my hackles. Just make your point and move on without shouting and other such bullcrap.

[Longfemur]

What's "elite". There are probably less than a hundred "elite" cyclists on the entire continent. Ok, let's say a few thousand. The rest are all at various different skill or enthusiast levels among the general public. Just because a person with cash to burn buys an "elite" super monocoque carbon fibre road bike a week ago and reads a few bike forums doesn't make the person elite. So who do you think municipalities should consider in their bicycle plans? If you happen to be "elite", well then you can probably take care of yourself on the roads anyway.

[LittleBigMan]

In design of public space, should communities consider design for 'trained' street cyclists or members of the general public?

In other words, should cities plan for trips to be taken only by LCI-trained cyclists - 'every lane is a bike lane', or plan for anyone of the general public that wants to hop on a bike? is it possible to design for both?
Cities should plan for all possibilities, and so should cyclists. So should drivers, when they see me riding in the center of the right lane parallel to an adjacent bike path.

Excellent question, BTW.

[Bekologist]

If you happen to be "elite", well then you can probably take care of yourself on the roads anyway.

That's my belief, that design for all bicyclists would include all skill levels, but the elite can take care of themselves. problem lies when the elite deny the members of the general public thoughful, considerate design of public space for different types of user - pedestrian, cyclists, joggers, low powered mobility devices, and gas powered devices including automobiles.

[MrCjolsen]

Lower speed limits. Draconian enforcement.

[wahoonc]

Both! Use the Danish or Dutch system as a plan basis...it works for them quite well. MUP's ARE NOT transportational they are recreational and should be funded as such. It isn't going to happen overnight. I would guess if we got started full force today it would take a full generation at minimum to get it rolling, perhaps a bit less. If we continue on the current course...who knows.

Aaron:)

[Pig_Chaser]

I'm still confused... i thought the elite trained cyclists (i assume vc'ers, and not atheletes?) require no cycling infrastructure whatsoever and therefore need not be given any thought or design considerations.
Meandering MUPs, however, do attract members of the general population; and although i can't stand them myself, i've seen how many more cyclists there are where MUPs exist.

[Bekologist]

trouble starts in america when the elite begin to obstruct bike specific infrastructure. it's pretty pathetic IMO for members of the elite to act as obstructionists to redesign of public space that facilitates the general publics' participation in a zero emissions mode of transportation.

[Longfemur]

I'm definitely not "elite" in any way, but I certainly am a very long time road bike rider. I actually like riding on a bike path. Even if they are multi-use, there are still plenty of times during certain hours when there aren't many people on it. And the really busy days like on weekends can easily be avoided. When I want to ride fast and steady for fitness purposes, or just because I want to go fast, I ride on appropriate roads. When I want to recover or just enjoy the sights, sounds and smells, I happily use the bikepaths we have here. I remember my city from before bikepaths. It's much better now.

[Bekologist]

remember , planning for bicyclists in communities includes a mix of MUP, on road bike lanes, wide lanes, unaccomodated streets, etc. obstructionists seem to be against bike-sepcific on road infrastructure. or just poorly designed ones?

however, the net effect of elite generally predicating 'no bike specific stuff on roads' is obstructionism towards greater public participation in bicycling. look at america alone- poorly accomodated cities like memphis and dallas have pathetic cyclist participation rates;

accomodated communties and cities that are currently implementing bike master plans with bike specific infrastructure treatments consistently show higher bike modal share than cities like Memphis, and ever increasing numbers of bicyclists in their communities.

the obstructionist complaint to this undeniable phenomenon of greater cyclist participation is a weak, inaccurate 'correlation doesn't imply causation'. that statement falls flat in light of overwhelming 'in your face' evidence facilities and planning for bikes gets more riders on the road and a reduction in cyclist accident rates.

. the obstructionist elite can blow that very weak and restricted statement about correlation - culled from the single variable scientific process - comment out their woods/dunlop.

[genec]

That's the exact situation with the MUPs I've seen here in Maryville & Lenoir City, and with the ones in Knoxville. At least the ones in Knoxville go somewhere. But they're mainly full of a quite dangerous mix of "traffic" and weren't apparently conceived of as realistic commuting alternatives.

So that's where I get that ridiculous idea.

As you point out, well designed bicycle facilities should be built for transportation. I've just not seen that.

And please don't be such a pompous dick in the future. Raises my hackles. Just make your point and move on without shouting and other such bullcrap.

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it has not been done or cannot be done. Building transportation facilities is what transportation dollars and planning will bring. Having facilities built by parks and recreation yields recreation paths. I have seen the difference... locally we have both... in small amounts. Recreation MUPs tend to be narrow and are often nothing more then glorified sidewalks... transportation facilities are wide with wide radius turns and when possible, are not at street level, to reduce intersections. See the pics below.

You declared you don't want "transportation dollars" spent for recreation facilities... I agree... let's build transportation facilities... can we speed transportation dollars there?

[girljen]

Excuse me... recreational facilities??? RECREATIONAL FACILITIES??? :eek:



Yes, exactly. They're used by pedestrians (I was a ped commuter last year and used the MUP), dog walkers, joggers, families with small children, rollerbladers, skateboarders, horses (not kidding), and cyclists of all stripes.

Even a dedicated bike lane or bike path adjacent to the MUP would make bike commuting more efficient. Oh, and it helps if they actually go somewhere, instead of just around in a big circle.

As for me, I ride my local MUP every day and love it. I have the choice to ride on the street, and when it's dark and the path is closed, I do it. If I could ride my local MUP without having to worry about kids darting out in front of me, dogs on super-long retractable leashes, and the occasional mound of horse crap, I'd love it even more.

[Bekologist]

that's funny, MUP's must be multipurpose then! both transportation AND recreation!

HEY, aren't bikes kind of like that???

Seriously, well provided path networks can provide a very viable transportation spine for better bicycle access across communities. look to your own state at greater Denver, girljen. large, viable bike path transportation network. Robert Hurst has some commentary on them at his site the industrialized cyclist.

[Jrather]

I have a problem with funds earmarked for highways going to recreational facilities in general. Not roads through recreational facilities, but the facilities themselves. MUPs seem to be recreational facilities. At least the ones I've seen.

I do this stuff as part of my day job. When MUPs are funded with federal dollars, the funds usually come out of the SAFTEA-LU (highway money) funding pot.... they're often channelled through Transportation Enhancements Program grants that municipalities can apply for through the State DOT. However, when used for bike infrastructure, the municipality applying for the funds has to prove that they are to be used for transportation, rather than recreational purposes. You have to make a case in order to get funded. Therefore, any MUP you see was probably constructed to provide a link between two points that either did not have a link beforehand, or had one that was not particularly safe for use by bicyclists and pedestrians.

To answer the first question of the thread, we plan for riders of all levels.

I will say that an awful lot of MUPs out there look like they were put in place by planners and engineers who don't even ride bikes. That's the reason why the interface between the MUP and the streets they cross are often terrible for the MUP users.

[cooker]

Cities should plan for everybody, but the problem is we can't always agree on what is best for everyone. Sharing the existing roads is daunting for some cyclists. Totally separate bikeways everywhere would be great, but it would be an expensive and unnecessary duplication of the roads and paths we already have. On street bike lanes are largely a symbolic gesture as they put cyclists exactly where they usually would be in any event, and they don't solve intersection conflicts. Separate traffic signals slow down all traffic, including bikes. Many drivers abuse their license privileges and are ignorant of the law, and the same applies even to some police. However in our zeal to advocate for cycling we tend to minimize the rampant illegal, dangerous and inconsiderate behaviour shown by many cyclists as well.

Whether or not additional facilities are created, we should expect drivers of bikes and cars (and police) to respect the laws and practises that are in place around right of way, safe passing, traffic controls and so on. Car drivers already have mandatory training, not that they always drive like it. Cyclists need to have some kind of education as well. I don't want to have to contend with wrong way cyclists forcing me off my line in traffic, or red-light and stop-sign runners almost crashing into me in intersections. I don't want to be stopped for a car at a 4-way stop only to have another cyclist overtake me and shoot past its bumper. Not only are they endangering themselves, they're holding me up, because now I have to wait even longer for the befuddled driver to exercise their right of way! (Happened this week).

I have no problem with police ticketing cyclists - I'd like to see more of it. They should hold us to the same standard as cars. They don't usually ticket cars for a "rolling stop" and they shouldn't ticket bikes for that either, but if you blow through without slowing and without regard for another vehicle that has the right of way, or if you endanger other cyclists by riding the wrong way, you can damn well pay the penalty.

[invisiblehand]

If "designing for members of the general public" means what I think it means, including meandering, jogger-clogged paths, right-hook and left-cross opportunities at every intersection, a maximum safe speed of 10mph, etc., I want no part of it. If "designing for members of the general public" means traffic calming of or bypasses around high-speed free merges, diverges, and unions, count me in. If "designing for members of the general public" includes lateral separation (wide smooth shoulders, wide outer lanes, bike lanes, etc.) on prime arterials, count me in. If "designing for members of the general public" includes bike lanes or bike boxes to the right of right-turn-only or right-turn-optional lanes at intersections, get me out of here.

You are creating a dichotomy which is not universally true. When the City of Solana Beach built a MUP between Coast Highway 101 and the railroad, they originally intended for it to replace the Class II bike lane. Fortunately, true cycling advocates prevailed, and we kept our Class II and got the Class I next to it. This is the ideal solution, but of course it takes up a fair bit of real estate.

Sounds reasonable.

Do people really think that a person taking Road 1 and 2 is an "elite"? I am just thinking of the amount of hours required to become do so. The first thing that crossed my mind is something like a SCUBA diver. Although, perhaps it is a lot of hours relative to the amount of hours people spend taking classes for a typical drivers license -- I recall something like three hours way back when in NY.

[Roody]

I don't know. Lately I'm leaning toward capital punishment for the wrong-way-riding general public. It should be a crime to be on the public roadways without minimal training. For somebody with a driver's license, minimal training for cyclists would probably take only an hour or two:


Ride in the same direction as other traffic and stay visible.
Ride as far right as practicable if that's the law in your state.
At least slow down for stop signs and stop for red lights.
Either make left turns from the appropriate lane or get off the bike and cross like a pedestrian.
No midblock rideouts.


That is (barely) enough.

[donnamb]

Do people really think that a person taking Road 1 and 2 is an "elite"? I am just thinking of the amount of hours required to become do so. The first thing that crossed my mind is something like a SCUBA diver. Although, perhaps it is a lot of hours relative to the amount of hours people spend taking classes for a typical drivers license -- I recall something like three hours way back when in NY.
For the most part, people do think of a person taking Road 1 & Road 2 as an "elite". Most people who ride a bike have never even heard of it. Where I live, there is only one LCI even holding classes. I ride my bike every day for transportation, I do not own a car, and I am not physically capable of taking that class the way it is taught here. It requires a degree of athleticism I do not possess and I most likely never will. There's no way I would ride places where people are driving 60 on a 45 mph road. If that is where I lived, I'm not sure I would be riding a bike. I have to ride on a 2 mile stretch of road like that in the suburbs twice a month from the light rail station to my employer's home office. Were it not for the bike lane, I wouldn't do it. I have no desire to be riding 15 mph in a lane where everyone else is going 60.

I'm not trying to be critical of SCUBA diving. I am sure it is a wonderful pastime. A bike, however, is used as a utilitarian tool to get from one place to another. While I know some people are professional divers and others are professional racing cyclists, I'm not sure I understand the comparison between a simple form of transportation to a mainly recreational activity like SCUBA diving.

[Bekologist]

elite in regards this thread is elitism, not ability or skillsets.

ive read of some newly minted LCI instructors i doubt could even ride a high speed road effictively on a solo rush hour ride, invisiblehand. (what rustbelt city was it?) Road1 and Road2 classes have absolutely nothing to do with this question except the LCI program often trains rudimentary cyclists to develop elitist attitudes regards to bike specific infrastructure.

referencing the obstrustionist vc 'elitists' that think 'every lane is a bike lane' as an example.

the former mayor of bogata had a great populist rebuttal to that elitist statement...

every lane is a bike lane? "if an eight year old cannot ride a bike in a lane safely, that's NOT a bike lane!"

does that help to clarify the 'elite' vs.'general public' qualifiers for you, invisiblehand?

[Bekologist]

should we design public space for the very, very small percentage of elite and vocal obstructionists that proclaim, 'every lane is a bike lane' or should we look at design of public space considering the general public and biking? is it possible to design for both?

what is one of the biggest barriers to greater cyclist participation in america?

[donnamb]

what is one of the biggest barriers to greater cyclist participation in america?
Cars, naturally.

[Roody]

what is one of the biggest barriers to greater cyclist participation in america?

People don't know that they can ride in the streets without being killed. Sidewalk riding is ubiquitous, and not much better than walking, though more dangerous.

Will bike lanes change this? Maybe--but so far they have not. I see just as many people riding on sidewalks right next to bike lanes. Also, bike lanes will never be popular or safe if the general public doesn't know how to cycle through intersections, where the bike lane ends.. So we're back to training being the key--with or without "velo infrastructure."

[mandovoodoo]

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it has not been done or cannot be done. Building transportation facilities is what transportation dollars and planning will bring. Having facilities built by parks and recreation yields recreation paths. I have seen the difference... locally we have both... in small amounts. Recreation MUPs tend to be narrow and are often nothing more then glorified sidewalks... transportation facilities are wide with wide radius turns and when possible, are not at street level, to reduce intersections. See the pics below.

You declared you don't want "transportation dollars" spent for recreation facilities... I agree... let's build transportation facilities... can we speed transportation dollars there?

Yup. The illustration you provide is exactly what I want to see. Real bicycle roads that allow for a reasonable volume of moderate speed travel. I've never seen anything like that. Didn't know it existed. Great idea brought to fruition. Anyone considering cycle commuting would probably feel safe on that, at least from cars if not muggers.

The problem I have with the paths I've generally seen from a transportation perspective is that they're poor at actually transporting folks. The "greenway" paths in Maryville go by many destinations without connectors to those destinations. I'd commute on such a thing, but would be making my own short connectors by clearing paths. Probably attract censure for it, but if you're 100 yards from a shopping area and only a pile of brush is in the way, why not? Well, why isn't the connection there anyway? I can't see that kind of MUP being transportation oriented.

[Bekologist]

People don't know that they can ride in the streets without being killed. Sidewalk riding is ubiquitous, and not much better than walking, though more dangerous.

Will bike lanes change this? Maybe--but so far they have not. I see just as many people riding on sidewalks right next to bike lanes. Also, bike lanes will never be popular or safe if the general public doesn't know how to cycle through intersections, where the bike lane ends.. So we're back to training being the key--with or without "velo infrastructure."


DESPITE your assumptions and observations about bike specific infrastructure, the studies I've seen indicate bike lanes reduce sidewalk riding and increase street use at intersections, roody.

well provided bike specific infrastructure leads to greater road use by bicyclists.

and 'training' is not a 'key' mandate on community design of public space, roody.

[Bekologist]

Yup. The illustration you provide is exactly what I want to see. Real bicycle roads that allow for a reasonable volume of moderate speed travel. I've never seen anything like that. Didn't know it existed. Great idea brought to fruition. Anyone considering cycle commuting would probably feel safe on that, at least from cars if not muggers.

The problem I have with the paths I've generally seen from a transportation perspective is that they're poor at actually transporting folks. The "greenway" paths in Maryville go by many destinations without connectors to those destinations. I'd commute on such a thing, but would be making my own short connectors by clearing paths. Probably attract censure for it, but if you're 100 yards from a shopping area and only a pile of brush is in the way, why not? Well, why isn't the connection there anyway? I can't see that kind of MUP being transportation oriented.

manvoodoo, connectivity of routes and path networks and integrating them with a network of on road bike facilities, widened streets or unaccomodated roads is a prime objective of infrastructuralists.

[botto]

I don't know. Lately I'm leaning toward capital punishment for the wrong-way-riding general public. It should be a crime to be on the public roadways without minimal training. For somebody with a driver's license, minimal training for cyclists would probably take only an hour or two:


Ride in the same direction as other traffic and stay visible.
Ride as far right as practicable if that's the law in your state.
At least slow down for stop signs and stop for red lights.
Either make left turns from the appropriate lane or get off the bike and cross like a pedestrian.
No midblock rideouts.


That is (barely) enough.

terrible advice to give to any cyclist.

you may as well put a target on their back.

[genec]

For the most part, people do think of a person taking Road 1 & Road 2 as an "elite". Most people who ride a bike have never even heard of it. Where I live, there is only one LCI even holding classes. I ride my bike every day for transportation, I do not own a car, and I am not physically capable of taking that class the way it is taught here. It requires a degree of athleticism I do not possess and I most likely never will. There's no way I would ride places where people are driving 60 on a 45 mph road. If that is where I lived, I'm not sure I would be riding a bike. I have to ride on a 2 mile stretch of road like that in the suburbs twice a month from the light rail station to my employer's home office. Were it not for the bike lane, I wouldn't do it. I have no desire to be riding 15 mph in a lane where everyone else is going 60.

I'm not trying to be critical of SCUBA diving. I am sure it is a wonderful pastime. A bike, however, is used as a utilitarian tool to get from one place to another. While I know some people are professional divers and others are professional racing cyclists, I'm not sure I understand the comparison between a simple form of transportation to a mainly recreational activity like SCUBA diving.

I have taken Road 1 and Road 2; I have well over 30 years experience cycling; 7 years car free and I am a SCUBA instructor... All told, I would probably be considered "elite." ;)

While I tend to agree that few cyclists are even aware of cycling classes (perhaps as few motorists know of cyclists' rights to the road), I am here to tell you that you could take Road 1 and Road 2 with no problem... hardly any "athleticism" at all is needed... really, it all about technique. Now SCUBA is a bit different.... :D A certain amount of physical fitness is needed to move the gear through the water.

What I find even more interesting is the comparison between either the bike class and SCUBA class and a typical driving class... the amount of time required to learn how to drive something that has the potential to harm many others is terribly low. :mad:

BTW the comparison between Cycling and SCUBA was not to compare the two, but to highlight that training for either takes more of a commitment then "training" to drive. That is the real irony. :rolleyes:

[genec]

Yup. The illustration you provide is exactly what I want to see. Real bicycle roads that allow for a reasonable volume of moderate speed travel. I've never seen anything like that. Didn't know it existed. Great idea brought to fruition. Anyone considering cycle commuting would probably feel safe on that, at least from cars if not muggers.

The problem I have with the paths I've generally seen from a transportation perspective is that they're poor at actually transporting folks. The "greenway" paths in Maryville go by many destinations without connectors to those destinations. I'd commute on such a thing, but would be making my own short connectors by clearing paths. Probably attract censure for it, but if you're 100 yards from a shopping area and only a pile of brush is in the way, why not? Well, why isn't the connection there anyway? I can't see that kind of MUP being transportation oriented.

Yes, in the same area are also paths that use stairways for access and are so narrow that you have to practically walk when another cyclist comes by.

There are all sorts of paths. I saw an entire network that was far superior to anything I have ever seen in the US of very high quality paths in Oulo Finland... they were as good or better then the pictures I showed earlier.

The bottom line is that transportation funding can and should be used to build such paths where the need can be shown.

The path shown in those pictures was funded as the connecting road was replaced with a freeway; the path parallels the freeway to give cyclists connectivity they had before the freeway replaced the road. It is quite nice to ride, but unfortunately it does nothing for me for transportation. It just happens to be close to my office.

[Bekologist]

I wasn't aware drivers are required to take hours of training; in this state you show up for a road and classroom test, and if you pass, you get a liscense. NO hours of training required at all.

Genec, have you read about this LCI debacle? in one rust belt city, bike advocates, disappointed in the low level of LCI training and instructors in their area, churned out a half dozen new LCI 'instructors' out of of raw cloth.

Some of the newbie instructors admitted - AFTER obtaining their LCI instructor certification - they wouldn't be comfortable riding higher speed roads solo. Apparantly even the LCI 'instructor' certification isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

autocentric road design (among other factors) has led to low cyclist participation in this country. Should we design community road infrastructure for 'trained' elite bike riders, or members of the general public?

Why should cyclists be required to be 'trained' to ride roads, if even motorists (in my state as an example) have no requirements for training?

I certainly think, in a democracy like ours, design for the greater good prevails versus the vocal, elitist and obstructionist demands of the few.

[cooker]

transportation facilities are wide with wide radius turns and when possible, are not at street level, to reduce intersections. See the pics below.
That one fully separate path is obviously along a major street or freeway which was already below grade. It is probably a great "trunk line" but the side branches are going to have to be normal city streets. So while that particular route will add to the convenience of cyclists who happen to be going in that direction, everyone who uses it will still have to contend with ordinary traffic conditions at the beginning and end of their trip, just like cars drivers do before and after they use their freeways.