Advocacy & Safety - this all just common sense?

Been visiting the forum since I took up bike riding in early November. It is obvious there are a lot of people pretty passionate about bicycling which I consider a good thing but I have also noticed that this passion can override common sense as to where it is safe to ride. A bad thing.

Yes I know the law says that bicycles have the same rights and responsibility's as other vehicles but lets face it the reality and common sense dictates otherwise.

In my community there are several 4,5 and 6 lane roads that were constructed prior to the inclusion of bike lanes and or bikeable shoulders that are simply unsafe for everyone when a bike is tossed into there use. People in cars do not hate bicyclist or even give it any thought except when they see someone on a bike on these particular roads. Being detached from the cycling community all they can think is "this dude must be crazy". I hate to admit it here but I tend to agree with them.

The good news as far as my town gos is that when upgrades are made bike lanes are now included. This will probably be true for most communitys. As this happens these roads become usable for bicyclist with relative safety.

So IMO the debate boils down to this. Common sense and a little patience as upgrades to the infrastructure are made to accommodate the growing number of people using bikes as there primary mode of transportation.

If all goes well our grandchildren will never have to debate half the things we debate here as bike lanes will be the norm and not the exception. From our rocking chairs we will tell them that when we were there age we had no bike lanes, had to ride in traffic and the trip was uphill both ways into the wind. There response will be "grandpa you must have been crazy" and they will be right.

It's like you're in my head... :D

Could not agree more with everything you said.

Ah, Junior Member Bike Lane Fanatics, who have determined that they are wiser then anyone preceding their existence.

Do reply back here again after you get severely right hooked on a bike lane.

-Kurt

:rolleyes: Every spring newspapers print letters to the editor along the same lines; bikers don't belong on certain roads and are putting themselves at risk, etc. If these writers are truly concerned for my safety, all they have to do is slow down and pay attention to the task at hand; driving a potentially dangerous vehicle. I always suggest motorists take care of their driving responsibilities and let me take care of myself.

Ah, Junior Member Bike Lane Fanatics, who have determined that they are wiser then anyone preceding their existence.

Do reply back here again after you get severely right hooked on a bike lane.

-Kurt

If he really does drive his bike other than recreationally, with any sort of frequency, he'll come around.

Everybody is scared in the beginning and the white lines give them a false sense of safety.

Check back in November Murph

Ah, Junior Member Bike Lane Fanatics, who have determined that they are wiser then anyone preceding their existence.

Ah, pretentious old-school BF'rs who think post count = experience. :50:

I love it when drivers who have just rediscovered a bicycle impart 'wisdom' on people who have been cycling for decades. Kinda like the guy who hasn't touched a football since his benchwarmer days at PS666 imparting his vast knowledge of the game on his kid's former pro college coach. :lol:

I know the big bad streets look scary when you are outside of that metal cage you have grown to need like a security blanket, but it really isn't that bad. With actual experience riding in a variety of conditions and locales, your perception of what is common sense will change. Guarooonteeed.

I think that cyclists with more than say 1000 street miles logged a year should ask yourself -- am I riding a particular area to make a point, because it is statistically safer, or because my gut tells me it is safer. People with less than 1000 street miles might be more likely to have faulty gut feelings. While people with more than 2000 street miles per year might be more likely to trust in the statistical side. And the ones that are just making a point, that is fine, somebody has to be on the front lines.

I find myself in all three categories from time to time and year to year.

Experienced cyclists usually don't choose where they ride based upon making some political point...those are the dead & maimed cyclists who can't defend themselves here unless we hold a seance or provide wireless internet to the ERs. ;)

Experienced cyclists usually don't choose where they ride based upon making some political point...those are the dead & maimed cyclists who can't defend themselves here unless we hold a seance or provide wireless internet to the ERs. ;)

I've ridden in Critical Mass rides which are political and pretty safe-- at least as far as being hit by a car is concerned.

BTW--

Since when is common sense good sense?

I've ridden in Critical Mass rides which are political and pretty safe-- at least as far as being hit by car is concerned.

Getting hit by cops, not so much. :eek:

YouTube - Critical Mass Bicyclist Assaulted by NYPD

Another opinion piece footnoted to "common sense".

Why bother with checking facts when *common sense* is so much easier?

Whatever would my grade 12 history teacher have said....

Getting hit by cops, not so much. :eek:

YouTube - Critical Mass Bicyclist Assaulted by NYPD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUkiyBVytRQ)

What are you some kinda fear monger? Besides fallen bike hero took out the cop -- since he had to "resign".

No no, bike lanes would never work.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3457/3363901578_31b8b3d3a7.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3552/3363087001_1c1e0340ef.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3417/3363085171_c0c64c6340.jpg

What are you some kinda fear monger? Besides fallen bike hero took out the cop -- since he had to "resign".

Yes, cycwing scawres me. Ders wabbits afoot!

could it even remotely be possible that those of us who are "experienced" cyclists, who ride more than 1 or 2 thousand miles per year, who deal with traffic on a daily basis might, just might have something to learn from the new cyclists' perspective?

Where I live the infrastructure most definitely could stand improvement- I would say that even if I commuted and traveled everywhere by car never mind by bike. I think it's worth hearing the ideas of those who have not grown complacent, bitter, curmudgeonly, apathetic, closed minded or have acquiesced to the status quo, which IMO is seriously flawed.

As I've pointed out in previous A&S threads the Boston metropolitan area finished it's basic road infrastructure in the early 1960's just a few years before I became a "serious" cyclist. It's population has remained static or dropped while the number of registered automobiles has increased almost 400%- all on that same infrastructure. Not to mention that a substantial proportion of our products and goods are now shipped via truck as opposed to rail. It is a seriously strained system and throwing a bike or two in there to many people does seem like madness- and I say this as someone who "plays in traffic" every day.

I, for one, would like to see more bikes in use as a means of transport. I think there is plenty of evidence that there is safety in numbers, I think it reduces our dependence on fossil fuels, it reduces congestion and stress on our infrastructure, I think it means a healthier, happier population- it has a lengthy list of benefits for all of us to have more people on bikes. Before I immediately dismiss the suggestions of the new cyclists because I think they are a neophyte with nothing to offer I'm only too happy to listen at least with the hope that they, and others, will suggest things that will make them keep cycling and create an environment that invites others to do the same.

Being detached from the cycling community all they can think is "this dude must be crazy". I hate to admit it here but I tend to agree with them.

...made bike lanes are now included...these roads become usable for bicyclist with relative safety.

So IMO the debate boils down to this. Common sense and a little patience as upgrades to the infrastructure are made to accommodate the growing number of people using bikes as there primary mode of transportation.



Bike lanes may or may not be a good thing.

For the most part, I'm not a huge fan of bike lanes, just because no thought is given to their installation and how they can cause complexities at intersections. The bike lanes that we have here, and what I see in my meager travels thoughout Canada, offer no solutions to the largest threat to cyclists and that is intersections. They only offer peace of mind for those who are concerned about following traffic and believe me that 5 micron thick strip of paint does nothing to protect you. How can a bike lane protect a cyclist who wants to make a left turn? Shall the cyclist make the left turn from the bike lane, which is on the extreme right hand side of the road (here in N.A.)?

Bike lanes (or paved shoulders) do have a place, but I would prefer none in a downtown core but rather on higher speed multi-lane roads, with minimal intersections and diverges and merges.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you say either regarding being "crazy" to ride on certain roads. In the cycling safety courses I teach, we talk about route planning (commutting for example). I always advise to plan your route on a map first, then ride that route on a Sunday to get a "feel" for it. After which you may adjust portions of it to suit your experience and comfort level, such as avoiding certain intersections or certain roads. Even then, the dynamics may be differant on a Sunday vs a weekday, and you may have to adjust again. For example, the Sunday ride may portray a road as fast but on a weekday, perhaps that same road, congested with traffic, and hence slower, is very rideable.
Of course, sometimes it is not possible to avoid certain road dynamics but there is always the possibility of adjusting your ride time, walking a section, or alternatives to a vehuicular style left turn on multi-lane roads.

Eventually you get a route (hopefully) that you're comfortable with.

So yes, common sense in the fact that you ride with what your comfortable with, and perhaps with some experience you'll start to ride more complex road situations. What matters alot is the speed difference between you as a cyclist and the motor vehicles. A more fit, hence a faster cyclist, can be more manouverable in traffic causing less delay (maybe not the wisest word choice) for other road users.

could it even remotely be possible that those of us who are "experienced" cyclists.... just might have something to learn from the new cyclists' perspective?

I'm only too happy to listen at least with the hope that they, and others, will suggest things that will make them keep cycling and create an environment that invites others to do the same.

Absoluetly! I am constantly reminded in my safety courses that there are less experienced people out there. They have discovered cycling, they want to get into it, however are a tad apprehensive about traffic. Very understandable.

Giving them the tools to build their confidence riding in traffic is what I offer, but they have to work at their own pace to get to a comfort level. I have to be aware of that and not discourage them.

Taking a 55 year old grandmother, who wishes to start cycling for exercise, out on a multi-lane highway that I could probably ride, would not be a wise idea as it may discourage her. Rather, residential streets would be preferrable to build her confidence then eventully she may attempt certain other roads that at one time she found daunting.

The OP expressed an opinion, I think discussing that opinion without the rhetoric (some good natured humour is fine) but I think encouragement would be better than belittling.

Opinions are fine...but that doesn't make them true or valid. For example, the assumption in the OP that roads must have bike lanes to be used safely by cyclists. 'Common sense' dictates that just is not the case, otherwise one would have to believe that cyclists have not been able to ride safely for a century without the presence of bike lanes on our roads. Sorry, peddling old wives tales is not useful for any cyclist, new or otherwise. ;)

:rolleyes: Every spring newspapers print letters to the editor along the same lines; bikers don't belong on certain roads and are putting themselves at risk, etc. If these writers are truly concerned for my safety, all they have to do is slow down and pay attention to the task at hand; driving a potentially dangerous vehicle. I always suggest motorists take care of their driving responsibilities and let me take care of myself.

When told how dangerous it is for cyclists on certain roads by cagers, I always suggest that if they are so concerned about my safety, they ought to take a different route!

I'm not too crazy about the assumption that one must be crazy to be riding on the road either, multi-laned or otherwise. One of the most enjoyable parts of my previous commute route was on a 5-6 lane one-way road through Akron. I pretty much had the right lane all to myself. I'm sure even the OP would have preferred it to my current route on narrow, single lane, 45-55mph country roads with no shoulder.

In either case, should I have just drove to work, rather than ride, because there are no bike lanes on those roads...and in the case of my current route, probably never will be? I think not. ;)

I don't mind bike lanes if they are not full of crap and put me in dangerous situations, but I'm sure as heck not going to let the lack of a bike lane prevent me from riding where I need to go, nor am I going to support the notion that bike lanes are required to make a road safe for cyclists. Nice to have, fine, required, not so much.

could it even remotely be possible that those of us who are "experienced" cyclists, who ride more than 1 or 2 thousand miles per year, who deal with traffic on a daily basis might, just might have something to learn from the new cyclists' perspective?

Where I live the infrastructure most definitely could stand improvement- I would say that even if I commuted and traveled everywhere by car never mind by bike. I think it's worth hearing the ideas of those who have not grown complacent, bitter, curmudgeonly, apathetic, closed minded or have acquiesced to the status quo, which IMO is seriously flawed.

As I've pointed out in previous A&S threads the Boston metropolitan area finished it's basic road infrastructure in the early 1960's just a few years before I became a "serious" cyclist. It's population has remained static or dropped while the number of registered automobiles has increased almost 400%- all on that same infrastructure. Not to mention that a substantial proportion of our products and goods are now shipped via truck as opposed to rail. It is a seriously strained system and throwing a bike or two in there to many people does seem like madness- and I say this as someone who "plays in traffic" every day.

I, for one, would like to see more bikes in use as a means of transport. I think there is plenty of evidence that there is safety in numbers, I think it reduces our dependence on fossil fuels, it reduces congestion and stress on our infrastructure, I think it means a healthier, happier population- it has a lengthy list of benefits for all of us to have more people on bikes. Before I immediately dismiss the suggestions of the new cyclists because I think they are a neophyte with nothing to offer I'm only too happy to listen at least with the hope that they, and others, will suggest things that will make them keep cycling and create an environment that invites others to do the same.

I agree Buzz. Communities shouldn't be designed around only the automobile.

On another note, if more people truly understood and abided by the rules of the road, there would be much less "safety concerns" about cyclists mixing in with motor vehicles, and many more would be willing to try it. Better training, enforcement, and maybe some public awareness campaigns, could go a long way in making things safer for all, and even increase ridership.

A recent ranting of mine, written under the screen name "Jude Moonshade", which is an anagram of my real name (the letters are rearranged):

I ride a bicycle about forty miles a week. I drive too. I used to ride more, but I'm getting older. Back in the day I could ride faster than the thirty MPH speed limit, but the speeders make the effort worth nothing.
I know some bicyclists have a more extreme position than I do. I watch my rear view mirror, and I judge each passing car on a case by case basis. I almost always pull over and slow or stop to let large trucks go by. Trucks are completely different than personal automobiles. While in many cases, an individual driving a car could make the same trip on a bike, this does not hold true for trucks. It would be hard for a truck driver to carry 40,000 pounds of produce, or lumber, or furniture, or anything, in a trailer behind a bicycle. I say this because many cyclists say that car trips are unnecessary and a bicycle could do the job. Not true with trucks.
Trucks are also a lot wider than a car, about three feet wider. In terms of the three-foot-passing law; if the cars are passing three feet from your bike, then the next large truck is going to sideswipe you. (Assuming there is traffic coming the other way and they can't cross the double yellow.)
My advice: Get a rear-view mirror for your bike and move over to let trucks go by.

could it even remotely be possible that those of us who are "experienced" cyclists, who ride more than 1 or 2 thousand miles per year, who deal with traffic on a daily basis might, just might have something to learn from the new cyclists' perspective?




:thumb:

Always the voice of reason.

These people are who we should be listening to.
These are the people who are going to give us strength in numbers.
Not the guy who alpha dogs a lane on a 55mph arterial.
I put in 5000 miles a year for the past two years in hostile South Florida,
and thousands more in Vermont and Pennsylvania, so I think I can
say I have some experience. I like lanes, want more :)
The main/only thing that I hear personally as to why more people arent
out there is that it is 'crazy' or they are scared of cars. Having been there,
I agree with them :)

The good news as far as my town gos is that when upgrades are made bike lanes are now included. This will probably be true for most communitys. As this happens these roads become usable for bicyclist with relative safety.

If all goes well our grandchildren will never have to debate half the things we debate here as bike lanes will be the norm and not the exception. From our rocking chairs we will tell them that when we were there age we had no bike lanes, had to ride in traffic and the trip was uphill both ways into the wind. There response will be "grandpa you must have been crazy" and they will be right.

Murph,

While my other posts here might be a bit crass I have to say that I agree with your general sentiment.

One thing is true, the more a cyclist knows about what can go wrong in a given situation, the less likely that person will be in an accident at all-- even on a six lane road.

Opinions are fine...but that doesn't make them true or valid. ;)

Of course not. Their opinion is based on ignorance or lack of experience. Any one who does a course with me come in with "oh my God I'm not riding on such-and-such a road!". But by the end of the course they start to change their ideas about cycling and get confidence. Maybe that's because I'm behind them and in the event of an overtaking accident I'll get the brunt of it.:rolleyes: You must get it all the time from non-cyclists Chipcom, "you're crazy to be on the road!" But if their willing to listen I patiently explain what options I have to make me safer on the road.




For example, the assumption in the OP that roads must have bike lanes to be used safely by cyclists. 'Common sense' dictates that just is not the case, otherwise one would have to believe that cyclists have not been able to ride safely for a century without the presence of bike lanes on our roads. Sorry, peddling old wives tales is not useful for any cyclist, new or otherwise. ;)

Then we agree. Bike lanes do have a place but for the most part I'm not for them if the local municipal government just slaps down a white line and proudly boasts of it. Bike lanes can confuse both motorist and cycist on how to properly interact.

A recent ranting of mine, written under the screen name "Jude Moonshade", which is an anagram of my real name (the letters are rearranged):

I ride a bicycle about forty miles a week. I drive too. I used to ride more, but I'm getting older. Back in the day I could ride faster than the thirty MPH speed limit, but the speeders make the effort worth nothing.
I know some bicyclists have a more extreme position than I do. I watch my rear view mirror, and I judge each passing car on a case by case basis. I almost always pull over and slow or stop to let large trucks go by. Trucks are completely different than personal automobiles. While in many cases, an individual driving a car could make the same trip on a bike, this does not hold true for trucks. It would be hard for a truck driver to carry 40,000 pounds of produce, or lumber, or furniture, or anything, in a trailer behind a bicycle. I say this because many cyclists say that car trips are unnecessary and a bicycle could do the job. Not true with trucks.
Trucks are also a lot wider than a car, about three feet wider. In terms of the three-foot-passing law; if the cars are passing three feet from your bike, then the next large truck is going to sideswipe you. (Assuming there is traffic coming the other way and they can't cross the double yellow.)
My advice: Get a rear-view mirror for your bike and move over to let trucks go by.

The law already pretty much requires slower moving vehicles to yield for faster traffic...whether it be a bike or a truck....BUT only if the slower moving vehicle does not have to endanger themselves to do so.
The law also dictates that the passing vehicle has the responsibility to pass safely.

So if it is safe for you to move out of the way of faster traffic...by all means do so, it is the lawful and courteous thing to do....but if doing so will compromise your safety, the faster traffic will just have to be patient and use the other lane to pass if legal and safe to do so, until such time as the slower vehicle can safely yield.

Notice the key word here is safety. The convenience or class of vehicle is meaningless. Just because you are in a big hurry in a larger faster vehicle does not give you the right to compromise ANYONE'S safety. If more drivers got that through their rude, impatient heads, you all would have much less reason to fear riding in traffic. ;)

I'm not too crazy about the assumption that one must be crazy to be riding on the road either, multi-laned or otherwise. One of the most enjoyable parts of my previous commute route was on a 5-6 lane one-way road through Akron. I pretty much had the right lane all to myself. I'm sure even the OP would have preferred it to my current route on narrow, single lane, 45-55mph country roads with no shoulder.

Your confidence level and experience is higher. Great! Many experienced cyclists on multi-lane roads take the outside or curb lane, thereby making them more predictable, visible and safer by forcing overtaking traffic to change lanes around you. I do it, you do it, trouble is many do not have the confidence level hence think you're crazy to do so (sometimes I think I'm crazy as well):lol: If you don't and/or a new cyclist then design your route to avoid those (if you can) perhaps in time and with experience the opinion will change. We all started off that way I'm sure.




I don't mind bike lanes if they are not full of crap and put me in dangerous situations, but I'm sure as heck not going to let the lack of a bike lane prevent me from riding where I need to go, nor am I going to support the notion that bike lanes are required to make a road safe for cyclists. Nice to have, fine, required, not so much.

Yup.

Of course not. Their opinion is based on ignorance or lack of experience. Any one who does a course with me come in with "oh my God I'm not riding on such-and-such a road!". But by the end of the course they start to change their ideas about cycling and get confidence. Maybe that's because I'm behind them and in the event of an overtaking accident I'll get the brunt of it.:rolleyes: You must get it all the time from non-cyclists Chipcom, "you're crazy to be on the road!" But if their willing to listen I patiently explain what options I have to make me safer on the road.

Then we agree. Bike lanes do have a place but for the most part I'm not for them if the local municipal government just slaps down a white line and proudly boasts of it. Bike lanes can confuse both motorist and cycist on how to properly interact.

We've always agreed. You just have more patience than an old jarhead like me. ;)
I taught my kids to swim by throwing them into the lake, taught em to ride on the roads once their training wheels came off. Was never much for mollycoddling...I leave that to you folks with the patience of a saint.
The good guy / bad guy thing seems to work too...and I like being the bad guy. :p

The law already pretty much requires slower moving vehicles to yield for faster traffic...whether it be a bike or a truck....BUT only if the slower moving vehicle does not have to endanger themselves to do so.
The law also dictates that the passing vehicle has the responsibility to pass safely.;)

This of cousre assumes that people are kind and considerate. Many overtaking vehicles don't consider that you may be in danger and just want you out of the way. So, I always state what you just said Chipcom, but don't end up dead right either.




Notice the key word here is safety. The convenience or class of vehicle is meaningless. Just because you are in a big hurry in a larger faster vehicle does not give you the right to compromise ANYONE'S safety. If more drivers got that through their rude, impatient heads, you all would have much less reason to fear riding in traffic. ;)

So again, some common sense is needed when dealing with this type of road user. As I stated above, don't end up dead right.

We've always agreed. You just have more patience than an old jarhead like me. ;)
I taught my kids to swim by throwing them into the lake, taught em to ride on the roads once their training wheels came off. Was never much for mollycoddling...I leave that to you folks with the patience of a saint.
The good guy / bad guy thing seems to work too...and I like being the bad guy. :p

Jeez, my Dad brought me and my bike to the top of the hill and pushed me off, "you'll figure it by the time you reach the bottom". :lol:

I'm with Murph.

This of cousre assumes that people are kind and considerate. Many overtaking vehicles don't consider that you may be in danger and just want you out of the way. So, I always state what you just said Chipcom, but don't end up dead right either.

So again, some common sense is needed when dealing with this type of road user. As I stated above, don't end up dead right.

From one of my earlier replies. ;)


Experienced cyclists usually don't choose where they ride based upon making some political point...those are the dead & maimed cyclists who can't defend themselves here unless we hold a seance or provide wireless internet to the ERs. ;)

I'm with Murph.

The majority are with Murph...which is why cycling will never be 'mainstream' in America, let alone your idea of safe.

In my community there are several 4,5 and 6 lane roads that were constructed prior to the inclusion of bike lanes and or bikeable shoulders that are simply unsafe for everyone when a bike is tossed into there use.

There are no unsafe roads; only unsafe road users.

The addition of bicycles into the traffic flow are not what makes this situation unsafe. Incompetent drivers make this situation unsafe. The thing about incompetent drivers is that they are unsafe regardless of what other types of vehicles with which they share the road.

In this situation if the lane is too narrow to share, the best that the cyclist can do is control the lane by taking a position that makes it blatantly obvious that faster traffic must change lanes to pass. If the lane is wide enough to share, then there's really no problem.


The law already pretty much requires slower moving vehicles to yield for faster traffic...whether it be a bike or a truck....BUT only if the slower moving vehicle does not have to endanger themselves to do so.
The law also dictates that the passing vehicle has the responsibility to pass safely.

This of cousre assumes that people are kind and considerate. Many overtaking vehicles don't consider that you may be in danger and just want you out of the way. So, I always state what you just said Chipcom, but don't end up dead right either.

Kindness and consideration are irrelevant. When someone has a choice between acting in a legal manner and acting in an illegal manner, and they choose the later. Then they show themselves to be incompetent, among other things.

All this arguing over bike lanes and common sense is becoming tiresome. I wonder, do folks who ride bikes regularly in countries with a long tradition of bike transportation argue over these issues like we do? I like what I'm seeing in the photos Uke posted. I have no idea which city that is but I see apparently civil folks going about the normal business of their lives on bicycles. What would they think of all our wrangling?

Yes I know the law says that bicycles have the same rights and responsibility's as other vehicles but lets face it the reality and common sense dictates otherwise.

In my community there are several 4,5 and 6 lane roads that were constructed prior to the inclusion of bike lanes and or bikeable shoulders that are simply unsafe for everyone when a bike is tossed into there use.


I would classify bicycles as low-speed vehicles, much like mopeds, motorbikes, golf carts, "electric neighborhood vehicles", and Amish horse-carts. The laws are not particularly consistent regarding which type of low-speed vehicles are allowed on different types of high-speed roads. I'm not especially interested in debating which types of vehicles should be allowed on said roads, but I agree that the situation is not exactly ideal for either the high-speed or low-speed vehicles. Because of this, I think it is in all of our interests to advocate for greater connectivity between low-speed streets that run roughly parallel to high-speed streets. The suburbs can really stand to be retrofitted such that you can easily navigate your way around by way of the side streets -- far too many don't connect to any destination beyond the houses of the residents of the immediate subdivision.

When told how dangerous it is for cyclists on certain roads by cagers, I always suggest that if they are so concerned about my safety, they ought to take a different route!

In many newer suburban areas, alternate routes are often not available -- too many neighborhood streets do not connect. We should remedy that.

People in cars do not hate bicyclist or even give it any thought except when they see someone on a bike on these particular roads.
This is where I disagree. They hate you because you are on a bicycle no matter where you are. And your post is trollish and provocative as well as naive.

I stay away from the 4 lane main drag in our town because it causes too much hate and discontent. North of downtown, it is so crowded, and the traffic lights are so poorly timed, that I would never ride on it for more than a block. South of downtown, it would be fine for bike traffic almost at any hour, but I avoid it because I don't like hate and discontent. I was on it this winter when the bike path was iced over, and the only two cars that passed me in a 5 minute time period honked at me. 2 travel lanes and a center suicide lane and a single car can't pass a single bicycle?

All this arguing over bike lanes and common sense is becoming tiresome. I wonder, do folks who ride bikes regularly in countries with a long tradition of bike transportation argue over these issues like we do? I like what I'm seeing in the photos Uke posted. I have no idea which city that is but I see apparently civil folks going about the normal business of their lives on bicycles. What would they think of all our wrangling?

Those pics are from Copenhagen, Denmark (and specifically, this blog (http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/)). There, the city decided to invest in infrastructure and restrict cars instead of making excuses, and now 33% of people ride to work daily. It's perfectly normal, as you said. Folks take their kids out with bikes, go to the movies on bikes, and just get on with life. Some cities in the US are catching on (like Portland, which has about a 8% cycling population). There's a lot of drama in this forum, but that's just because some here think our 1% national average is good enough. Meanwhile, much of the world is figuring out that all you really need to do to get people on bikes is make them feel safe, which you do by increasing infrastructure and restricting cars. Maybe someday we'll figure it out too.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2156/2187593901_f0270675b8.jpg

Good luck on selling the car restriction plan to Americans. Sounds like an excellent way for a politician to guarantee that he loses an election! :D

Good luck on selling the car restriction plan to Americans. Sounds like an excellent way for a politician to guarantee that he loses an election! :D

Politicians don't have to do a thing... the price of a limited commodity will eventually restrict the use of the car... it is only a matter of time.

Politicians don't have to do a thing... the price of a limited commodity will eventually restrict the use of the car... it is only a matter of time.

That's true. IF our economy recovers, I expect oil and materials cost to shoot back through the roof. Of course, if automobile usage declines naturally, that would reduce the necessity for special facilities (not that I am opposed to all facilities).

Kindness and consideration are irrelevant. When someone has a choice between acting in a legal manner and acting in an illegal manner, and they choose the later. Then they show themselves to be incompetent, among other things.

That's my point, my post stated that "this assumes that people are kind and considerate"

To say that another way, the letter of the law states that the rules are set out assuming that people will act in a kind and considerate manner. Not always.

If you as a cyclist, are assertive, ride according to the rules and therefore are predictable and communicative with other road users things tend to go well. To every non-cyclist (motorist) I talk to they say that cyclists are so unpredictable, the non-cyclist is unsure what to do and they feel angry that the cyclists safety is in their hands. If the cyclist is communicative and predictable so that everyone can continue about their business and traffic is not too disrupted then, like i said things go well.

HOWEVER, just because you think you may have the right of way in certain situations do not expect the other driver to give it. In a car, this does not happen too much, but when on a bicycle many motorist do not want to give way or yield to a bicycle, even though the law states they should yield.

You may be right, but don't be dead right.

Again, it comes down to our cycling inferiority in N.A. It's changing and proper education of both cyclist and motorist will go along way to changing attitudes. No it's not perfect, I agree, and that's why some people (the OP) think that we are crazy for riding on certain roads.

That's true. IF our economy recovers, I expect oil and materials cost to shoot back through the roof.

I'm hoping for $2 a litre when it does......I'm not sure what that is in $US per US gallon....ALOT!

Gawd I'll be giggling like crazy.

This is where I disagree. They hate you because you are on a bicycle no matter where you are.

Yes, this is were we disagree. I'm sorry, thinking that every motorist hates you because you are on a bicycle is just plain silly. They may fear you, they may think you are crazy, they may envy you, but in most cases they really don't think about you at all...unless you are in their way, in which case, yes, they pretty much hate you...just as they hate granny in her station wagon, school zones, stop lights/signs, pets, peds or anything else that gets in their way.

Good luck on selling the car restriction plan to Americans. Sounds like an excellent way for a politician to guarantee that he loses an election! :D

Reality doesn't enter into the equation when you are young and idealistic like uke. Weren't we all like that until reality's constant beatings numbed us? Utopia would be cool, but getting there from Albuquerque is the rub. ;)

That's true. IF our economy recovers, I expect oil and materials cost to shoot back through the roof. Of course, if automobile usage declines naturally, that would reduce the necessity for special facilities (not that I am opposed to all facilities).

Exactly, but that old bike infrastructure might still be useful for keeping the slower cyclists out of OUR way. :lol:

have also noticed that this passion can override common sense as to where it is safe to ride. A bad thing.

Yes I know the law says that bicycles have the same rights and responsibility's as other vehicles but lets face it the reality and common sense dictates otherwise.

So IMO the debate boils down to this. Common sense and a little patience as upgrades to the infrastructure are made to accommodate the growing number of people using bikes as there primary mode of transportation. .

Some people don't have a lot of cash to throw around and use the bicycle for transportation. Responsible is what I call it.

Common sense would dictate people would be more careful and encourage cycling since it is providing cheaper gas, cleaner air, more public space, less noise pollution, cleaner water, less death and injury, healthier, cheaper health insurance, less congestion, less sprawl, happier people, bigger brains, and a sense of community.

Reality is people don't want to use common sense which would dictate their children's future.

It could be an Interstate the mere fact all roads are safe for cycling, it is the unsafe motorists who make them dangerous.

Good luck on selling the car restriction plan to Americans. Sounds like an excellent way for a politician to guarantee that he loses an election! :D
You've touched upon the biggest hurdle we face: we're modern Americans. Our overall society and individual psychological make-up are car-centric and our politics and policies have little to do with improving quality of life because we misunderstand what that constitutes. We equate expansion and excess to the pursuit of happiness. I wonder how the founding fathers would judge us.