Chris L
01-31-02, 10:41 PM
It appears as though somebody else has had similar experiences to myself in this area:
http://www.living-room.org/bikepeople/bikepaths.htm
http://www.living-room.org/bikepeople/bikepaths.htm
View Full Version : Do we really need or even want bikepaths?
Pages :
[1]
2
mike
02-01-02, 04:17 AM
I like bike paths.
In a perfect world, automobiles would give bikes plenty of space, be courteous, and drive safely.
Until this happens, I like bike paths that keep me out of traffic. Many times, these paths go along the most scenic parts of the city in a park-like setting. They get me to where I want to go in a clean, peaceful, safe environment.
Even bike lanes offer me a part of the road that says to the driver "Stay away".
Right now, I like bike paths and bike lanes.
In a perfect world, automobiles would give bikes plenty of space, be courteous, and drive safely.
Until this happens, I like bike paths that keep me out of traffic. Many times, these paths go along the most scenic parts of the city in a park-like setting. They get me to where I want to go in a clean, peaceful, safe environment.
Even bike lanes offer me a part of the road that says to the driver "Stay away".
Right now, I like bike paths and bike lanes.
john999
02-01-02, 07:17 AM
There's a bike path from Darwin to Palmerston built on the old railway track.
It's straight, level, and actually *shorter* in distance to Palmerston.
It's well away from the traffic and noise, and goes through defence dept reserve land (i.e. scrubland).
That's a bikepath I like.
I hate the ones they have in Adelaide, that wander through every square inch of a paddock before going to the next section.
It's straight, level, and actually *shorter* in distance to Palmerston.
It's well away from the traffic and noise, and goes through defence dept reserve land (i.e. scrubland).
That's a bikepath I like.
I hate the ones they have in Adelaide, that wander through every square inch of a paddock before going to the next section.
John E
02-01-02, 08:49 AM
Good point -- we should not generalise and categorize all Class I (separated from motor vehicles) bikepaths as either evil or good. The safest, most efficient place to ride is probably in the main travel lane of a traffic-calmed residential street with a 25mph/40kph speed limit. I strongly oppose bike lanes and bike paths in these areas. However, when I need to access a major arterial boulevard or high-speed dual carriageway, then I want a wide shoulder, with or without a marked Class II bicycle lane. However, since high-speed freely-flowing merges and diverges are often dangerous and intimidating, I do welcome specially-designed bicycle bypasses.
One of the few Class I bikeways I use regularly is in Oceanside CA, along the San Luis Rey river. Pedestrians, though allowed, are scarce, and the alternative, the Highway 76 expressway, has a 65mph/105kph speed limit with several freely-flowing entrances and exits.
I generally dislike a bidirectional Class I bikeway which is retrofitted in parallel to a road, and which sets up cyclists to be "right-hooked" or otherwise struck at every intersection. I tried the one in Squaw Valley / west Lake Tahoe last summer; it was OK for playing tourist, but I would not want to rely on it for a daily commute.
One of the few Class I bikeways I use regularly is in Oceanside CA, along the San Luis Rey river. Pedestrians, though allowed, are scarce, and the alternative, the Highway 76 expressway, has a 65mph/105kph speed limit with several freely-flowing entrances and exits.
I generally dislike a bidirectional Class I bikeway which is retrofitted in parallel to a road, and which sets up cyclists to be "right-hooked" or otherwise struck at every intersection. I tried the one in Squaw Valley / west Lake Tahoe last summer; it was OK for playing tourist, but I would not want to rely on it for a daily commute.
aerobat
02-01-02, 09:33 AM
Looks like there are many definitions of "bike paths".
John E, I'm not sure of the strict def. of Class 1,2 etc. bikepaths, but it sounds like they are different from the "throught the park, for inliners, peds, sunday afternoon cyclists etc.".
I'm certainly in favour of bike paths, either separated from streets and highways totally, or at least a wide paved shoulder, as long as they are useful, ie. I can get to my destination fairly directly using them.
If they just meander and don't go anywhere they're not much use for commuting, but at least allow some of the non commuting cyclists to get off the main streets and cycle safely.
The preference obviously, is to have parallel bike paths/lanes, to give cyclists equal opportunity for efficient travel.
I wish the city planners would think about that when new paving, construction is planned. That would get some bikepaths started with minimum cost if they were incorporated at the same time as the main roadway.
John E, I'm not sure of the strict def. of Class 1,2 etc. bikepaths, but it sounds like they are different from the "throught the park, for inliners, peds, sunday afternoon cyclists etc.".
I'm certainly in favour of bike paths, either separated from streets and highways totally, or at least a wide paved shoulder, as long as they are useful, ie. I can get to my destination fairly directly using them.
If they just meander and don't go anywhere they're not much use for commuting, but at least allow some of the non commuting cyclists to get off the main streets and cycle safely.
The preference obviously, is to have parallel bike paths/lanes, to give cyclists equal opportunity for efficient travel.
I wish the city planners would think about that when new paving, construction is planned. That would get some bikepaths started with minimum cost if they were incorporated at the same time as the main roadway.
MichaelW
02-01-02, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by aerobat
The preference obviously, is to have parallel bike paths/lanes, to give cyclists equal opportunity for efficient travel.
With a bike lane parellel to a road, then at every junction, someone has to give way. As JohnE says, this is setting yourself up for a classic right hook. Its a kind of collision so common, we have a name for it.
If you stop at every junction, remember stopping loses you 100m of travel every time. That soon adds up. Id rather ride the real road alongside and control traffic in the usual manner.
One of the major arterial roads into my city has a parellel off-road bike path. At every junction, and every driveway, you have to be prepared to yield to cars. Its difficult and dangerous, and worse than that, makes people feel safe.
The kind of bike facilities which are useful are ones which get you out of danger, such as escapes from right-hand-turn-only lanes, or ways to cross difficult junctions. These are precisely the places where long straight bike lanes stop.
In London, some of the major cycle commuting routes are along canal tow paths. These are great for getting somewhere fast and safe, in pleasant surroundings.
The preference obviously, is to have parallel bike paths/lanes, to give cyclists equal opportunity for efficient travel.
With a bike lane parellel to a road, then at every junction, someone has to give way. As JohnE says, this is setting yourself up for a classic right hook. Its a kind of collision so common, we have a name for it.
If you stop at every junction, remember stopping loses you 100m of travel every time. That soon adds up. Id rather ride the real road alongside and control traffic in the usual manner.
One of the major arterial roads into my city has a parellel off-road bike path. At every junction, and every driveway, you have to be prepared to yield to cars. Its difficult and dangerous, and worse than that, makes people feel safe.
The kind of bike facilities which are useful are ones which get you out of danger, such as escapes from right-hand-turn-only lanes, or ways to cross difficult junctions. These are precisely the places where long straight bike lanes stop.
In London, some of the major cycle commuting routes are along canal tow paths. These are great for getting somewhere fast and safe, in pleasant surroundings.
Richard D
02-01-02, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by MichaelW
One of the major arterial roads into my city has a parellel off-road bike path. At every junction, and every driveway, you have to be prepared to yield to cars. Its difficult and dangerous, and worse than that, makes people feel safe.
Faversham has one of these wonderful inventions, and the planners were clever enough to only run it one side of the road, choosing the side of the road with most intersections...
Originally posted by MichaelW
The kind of bike facilities which are useful are ones which get you out of danger, such as escapes from right-hand-turn-only lanes, or ways to cross difficult junctions. These are precisely the places where long straight bike lanes stop.
To be fair Canterbury has a few of these. I'm also in favour of those that link sections of road that would otherwise require a long ride round, often involving a complete U-turn at a roundabout - I suppose 'rat runs' exclusively for cyclists.
Originally posted by MichaelW
In London, some of the major cycle commuting routes are along canal tow paths. These are great for getting somewhere fast and safe, in pleasant surroundings.
I'm not familiar with the bike lanes in london, but as I've probably bored people with already, the local advocacy group in conjunction with Sustrans have opened a route along an old railway, linking Whitstable and Canterbury - I'm quite envious of a colleagues commute...
Richard
One of the major arterial roads into my city has a parellel off-road bike path. At every junction, and every driveway, you have to be prepared to yield to cars. Its difficult and dangerous, and worse than that, makes people feel safe.
Faversham has one of these wonderful inventions, and the planners were clever enough to only run it one side of the road, choosing the side of the road with most intersections...
Originally posted by MichaelW
The kind of bike facilities which are useful are ones which get you out of danger, such as escapes from right-hand-turn-only lanes, or ways to cross difficult junctions. These are precisely the places where long straight bike lanes stop.
To be fair Canterbury has a few of these. I'm also in favour of those that link sections of road that would otherwise require a long ride round, often involving a complete U-turn at a roundabout - I suppose 'rat runs' exclusively for cyclists.
Originally posted by MichaelW
In London, some of the major cycle commuting routes are along canal tow paths. These are great for getting somewhere fast and safe, in pleasant surroundings.
I'm not familiar with the bike lanes in london, but as I've probably bored people with already, the local advocacy group in conjunction with Sustrans have opened a route along an old railway, linking Whitstable and Canterbury - I'm quite envious of a colleagues commute...
Richard
mike
02-01-02, 11:13 AM
Just today, on my ride to work, some @ss-hole decided it would be fun to splash me with slush. Rather than go around me, he bore into my lane. In the process, he created a dangerous situation and almost clipped me. I saw him looking into his rear-view mirror laughing.
A few moments later, some sleepy eyed Latina woman must have felt too lazy to go around me, so she just overtook my lane and ran me into the gutter.
I would like ANYTHING to separate me from dirtballs like that. Even a wide shoulder with a painted line for a bike lane is better than mixing with the vast numbers of idiots who are allowed to drive cars.
Sure, cars can still enter a bike lane and kill a bicyclist, but I think the risk is reduced by having space designated as "cars not allowed" with fines and legal ramifications for idiots that drive in them.
A few moments later, some sleepy eyed Latina woman must have felt too lazy to go around me, so she just overtook my lane and ran me into the gutter.
I would like ANYTHING to separate me from dirtballs like that. Even a wide shoulder with a painted line for a bike lane is better than mixing with the vast numbers of idiots who are allowed to drive cars.
Sure, cars can still enter a bike lane and kill a bicyclist, but I think the risk is reduced by having space designated as "cars not allowed" with fines and legal ramifications for idiots that drive in them.
aturley
02-01-02, 12:32 PM
I agree with the people who say that not all bike paths are equal. In Pacific Grove/Monterey, we have a bike path that runs down along the bay. It pretty much parallels Lighthouse Ave, which is two blocks over. I enjoy taking this on my morning commute because I get to see the ocean in the morning. Since it is by the ocean, there aren't a whole lot of crossings (just when you get to Cannery Row, which is between the ocean and the path), so I don't have to worry about cars too much. And it parallels Lighthouse, which is pretty much the only road that runs through town since they closed off public access to the Presidio.
These things being said, I can definitely see how in most cases, bike paths would be a bad thing, especially for serious cyclists (those who do more than just a weekend jaunt). They do encourage the idea that cyclist don't belong on the road, although not as much as bike lanes. And they do give people a false sense of security. Oh, and when crowded with pedestrians, they are useless.
I guess ideally I would want the right lane on roads to be a little wider so that cyclist could ride on the right without too much problem. Or, how about requiring cars to be a little narrower? Do you really need anything wider than a midsized sedan? If you do, they could be available, but you would need a special license for it, and to get that license you would have to show that you understand your responsiblities driving something that big. But I guess I'm just ranting now.
andy
These things being said, I can definitely see how in most cases, bike paths would be a bad thing, especially for serious cyclists (those who do more than just a weekend jaunt). They do encourage the idea that cyclist don't belong on the road, although not as much as bike lanes. And they do give people a false sense of security. Oh, and when crowded with pedestrians, they are useless.
I guess ideally I would want the right lane on roads to be a little wider so that cyclist could ride on the right without too much problem. Or, how about requiring cars to be a little narrower? Do you really need anything wider than a midsized sedan? If you do, they could be available, but you would need a special license for it, and to get that license you would have to show that you understand your responsiblities driving something that big. But I guess I'm just ranting now.
andy
John E
02-01-02, 01:49 PM
Whenever I attend a conference at Asilomar, I jog along the oceanfront path to which Andy refers. [Andy, the Monterey Peninsula is perhaps my favourite bit of turf on the entire planet.] This path works well because there are relatively few pedestrians, and, more importantly, very few intersections or traffic conflicts. We are trying to do something similar in San Diego, parallel to the San Diego Northern Railroad right-of-way.
Chris L
02-01-02, 02:26 PM
My main opposition to bikepaths (apart from the fact that I never feel safe using them) is that they chew up funds that could be spent on more useful facilities, such as on-road bike lanes or decent shoulders on the road. The Gold Coast City Council claims an annual cycling budget of $3million. That can be a lot or a little, depending on how it's spent. They might as well spend nothing if they're going to build facilities we can't use.
The whole idea of separate but equal is great in theory, but will never happen in the real world simply because the road infrastructure has come too far, and takes up too much space to ever allow it to happen. In any case, they don't really protect you from drivers because, if a driver really wants to take you out, they won't mind leaving the road to do it (as I have observed on many occasions).
As a consequence, we have paths that stop every 40 metres where you have to "dismount to cross road" (quoting the actual signs there), and of course, on all of them you have to "give way to pedestrians." In order to negotiate them safely, if you have a commute of any distance, you have to ride at a speed that will necessitate setting off at 3am if you intend to get to work on time.
The whole idea of separate but equal is great in theory, but will never happen in the real world simply because the road infrastructure has come too far, and takes up too much space to ever allow it to happen. In any case, they don't really protect you from drivers because, if a driver really wants to take you out, they won't mind leaving the road to do it (as I have observed on many occasions).
As a consequence, we have paths that stop every 40 metres where you have to "dismount to cross road" (quoting the actual signs there), and of course, on all of them you have to "give way to pedestrians." In order to negotiate them safely, if you have a commute of any distance, you have to ride at a speed that will necessitate setting off at 3am if you intend to get to work on time.
RetroLung
02-01-02, 09:26 PM
Inhale some more CO2, Watch out for the car that is pulled over into your lane, be careful of the people who sneak up behind you and beep their horns to scare you and enjoy the pot holes on the side of the road.
Bike Paths are not that expensive. The reason why they are so dam costly is that some num nuts accountant allocates tons of administrative and fixed cost to these project (Kind of like are Public schools, what trickles down to the teacher and student represents a very little piece of the pie.) A politician (especially if he republican) would rather fix roads then build paths because developers give them more money then bicyclers.
To take it a point further, I would argue that special funds that are set aside for projects (like Bike Paths) get more then their fair share of shared cost allocated to help rational people like you to think just that: “Bike paths are more expensive then Bike Lanes.” and "Look at all the money they spent on Bike Paths, they got my vote" while the other citizenry thinks "I going to vote for this guy because he fixed the pot hole on my street” Don’t fall for that accounting magic or I will sale you some Enron Stock!!!!!!
Think about it what cost more a road that is 40 feet across that need to be repaired every other year or an eight-foot bike path that only needs repair every five years.
Bike Paths are not that expensive. The reason why they are so dam costly is that some num nuts accountant allocates tons of administrative and fixed cost to these project (Kind of like are Public schools, what trickles down to the teacher and student represents a very little piece of the pie.) A politician (especially if he republican) would rather fix roads then build paths because developers give them more money then bicyclers.
To take it a point further, I would argue that special funds that are set aside for projects (like Bike Paths) get more then their fair share of shared cost allocated to help rational people like you to think just that: “Bike paths are more expensive then Bike Lanes.” and "Look at all the money they spent on Bike Paths, they got my vote" while the other citizenry thinks "I going to vote for this guy because he fixed the pot hole on my street” Don’t fall for that accounting magic or I will sale you some Enron Stock!!!!!!
Think about it what cost more a road that is 40 feet across that need to be repaired every other year or an eight-foot bike path that only needs repair every five years.
Chris L
02-01-02, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by RetroLung
Inhale some more CO2, Watch out for the car that is pulled over into your lane, be careful of the people who sneak up behind you and beep their horns to scare you and enjoy the pot holes on the side of the road.
Fact 1: You inhale a ton of CO2 just by merely living in the city. The difference between road and bike path in this respect is negligible. Don't want to inhale CO2 (or all the other crap) go and live in the country.
Fact 2: People aroudn here will sneak up and beep their horn whether you are on the road or on the adjacent bike path. Again, the difference here is negligible. Don't want to get honked, don't ride a bike.
Fact 3: Pot holes on the road are much easier to avoid than broken glass on the bike path (something very common around here) because on the road you have much more space. And of course, the path also has overhanging branches, pedestrians in groups of as much as 10, dogs, edges that drop off several inches between path and grass, stupid corners that serve no purpose, metal barriers etc etc. I suppose you enjoy all those things too do you?
Fact 4: If you intend to cover any distance at all, you will, at some point, need to use the road. The network of bikepaths is not sufficiently advanced and never will be for one to commute any distance solely on bike paths. I intend to ride where I want to, not where it suits the council to build a path.
Fact 5: The most dangerous aspect about cycling on the road is intersections. There are no fewer of these on urban bike paths (with side streets), but even more where the path begins and ends (see fact 4).
Originally posted by RetroLung
Bike Paths are not that expensive. The reason why they are so dam costly is that some num nuts accountant allocates tons of administrative and fixed cost to these project (Kind of like are Public schools, what trickles down to the teacher and student represents a very little piece of the pie.) A politician (especially if he republican) would rather fix roads then build paths because developers give them more money then bicyclers.
Oh, but they are by comparison to the alternative. Think about it, most roads are already wide enough to mark a shoulder or bike lane, and those that don't generally have dirt shoulders. This process will always be cheaper than ripping up the ground and starting from scratch.
They are allocated no more administrative costs than other projects. However, they do require more lobbying for the reason I have outlined above, they are simply more difficult and costly to build.
Originally posted by RetroLung
To take it a point further, I would argue that special funds that are set aside for projects (like Bike Paths) get more then their fair share of shared cost allocated to help rational people like you to think just that: “Bike paths are more expensive then Bike Lanes.” and "Look at all the money they spent on Bike Paths, they got my vote" while the other citizenry thinks "I going to vote for this guy because he fixed the pot hole on my street”
And I will put that one with the political conspiracy theories that people use to argue about the helmet law in this country. The truth of the matter is that:
a) I am not going to vote for anybody that builds bike paths of the kind I have described, so they won't con anybody.
b) Cyclists are a decidedly small minority. Politicians have bigger votes to chase. I tend to think that the bike path movement is only aimed at attracting the "green" vote generally (not specifically cyclists) by claiming a commitment to "sustainable transport" without having to inconvenience the motorists (the majority). In fact, it's likely to make the motoring primate vote for them ("got all those damn bikes off the road").
Originally posted by RetroLung
Think about it what cost more a road that is 40 feet across that need to be repaired every other year or an eight-foot bike path that only needs repair every five years.
The trouble with the bike path is that it requires repair more often than every five years. That is why they fall into the states I have described at the top of this message (fact 3, I believe). The other thing to realise here is, the road is there anyway. People are not going to stop driving on it because there is a bike path. It will still need the same repairs as it does now. The only difference is whether the cyclist rides on the road and gets the benefit of this repair work, or whether they ride on the path and don't. I know which I'm going to choose.
Inhale some more CO2, Watch out for the car that is pulled over into your lane, be careful of the people who sneak up behind you and beep their horns to scare you and enjoy the pot holes on the side of the road.
Fact 1: You inhale a ton of CO2 just by merely living in the city. The difference between road and bike path in this respect is negligible. Don't want to inhale CO2 (or all the other crap) go and live in the country.
Fact 2: People aroudn here will sneak up and beep their horn whether you are on the road or on the adjacent bike path. Again, the difference here is negligible. Don't want to get honked, don't ride a bike.
Fact 3: Pot holes on the road are much easier to avoid than broken glass on the bike path (something very common around here) because on the road you have much more space. And of course, the path also has overhanging branches, pedestrians in groups of as much as 10, dogs, edges that drop off several inches between path and grass, stupid corners that serve no purpose, metal barriers etc etc. I suppose you enjoy all those things too do you?
Fact 4: If you intend to cover any distance at all, you will, at some point, need to use the road. The network of bikepaths is not sufficiently advanced and never will be for one to commute any distance solely on bike paths. I intend to ride where I want to, not where it suits the council to build a path.
Fact 5: The most dangerous aspect about cycling on the road is intersections. There are no fewer of these on urban bike paths (with side streets), but even more where the path begins and ends (see fact 4).
Originally posted by RetroLung
Bike Paths are not that expensive. The reason why they are so dam costly is that some num nuts accountant allocates tons of administrative and fixed cost to these project (Kind of like are Public schools, what trickles down to the teacher and student represents a very little piece of the pie.) A politician (especially if he republican) would rather fix roads then build paths because developers give them more money then bicyclers.
Oh, but they are by comparison to the alternative. Think about it, most roads are already wide enough to mark a shoulder or bike lane, and those that don't generally have dirt shoulders. This process will always be cheaper than ripping up the ground and starting from scratch.
They are allocated no more administrative costs than other projects. However, they do require more lobbying for the reason I have outlined above, they are simply more difficult and costly to build.
Originally posted by RetroLung
To take it a point further, I would argue that special funds that are set aside for projects (like Bike Paths) get more then their fair share of shared cost allocated to help rational people like you to think just that: “Bike paths are more expensive then Bike Lanes.” and "Look at all the money they spent on Bike Paths, they got my vote" while the other citizenry thinks "I going to vote for this guy because he fixed the pot hole on my street”
And I will put that one with the political conspiracy theories that people use to argue about the helmet law in this country. The truth of the matter is that:
a) I am not going to vote for anybody that builds bike paths of the kind I have described, so they won't con anybody.
b) Cyclists are a decidedly small minority. Politicians have bigger votes to chase. I tend to think that the bike path movement is only aimed at attracting the "green" vote generally (not specifically cyclists) by claiming a commitment to "sustainable transport" without having to inconvenience the motorists (the majority). In fact, it's likely to make the motoring primate vote for them ("got all those damn bikes off the road").
Originally posted by RetroLung
Think about it what cost more a road that is 40 feet across that need to be repaired every other year or an eight-foot bike path that only needs repair every five years.
The trouble with the bike path is that it requires repair more often than every five years. That is why they fall into the states I have described at the top of this message (fact 3, I believe). The other thing to realise here is, the road is there anyway. People are not going to stop driving on it because there is a bike path. It will still need the same repairs as it does now. The only difference is whether the cyclist rides on the road and gets the benefit of this repair work, or whether they ride on the path and don't. I know which I'm going to choose.
RetroLung
02-01-02, 10:35 PM
I can only go off what I have experienced in San Diego.
Fact: The 8 mile Bike path is allot on the silver strand in San Diego is much more enjoyable to ride then the east harbor route in which there is a bike route.
Fact: I have never received a flat on the silver strand route and have received two on Harbor Boulevard, which is the way back on the east harbor.
Fact: I have never been almost hit or flipped off on the bike path by a SUV. check this one out
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5157
According to Bicycling Magazine in San Diego "cyclist can count on at least $1 million a year from transportation tax." That is allot of dough to buy asphalt for paths. I don't imagine that when they fix a bike lane that they will ignore the pothole in the road. By the way what fund do you think they charge it to and have you ever seen the way people drive out here.
Fact: The 8 mile Bike path is allot on the silver strand in San Diego is much more enjoyable to ride then the east harbor route in which there is a bike route.
Fact: I have never received a flat on the silver strand route and have received two on Harbor Boulevard, which is the way back on the east harbor.
Fact: I have never been almost hit or flipped off on the bike path by a SUV. check this one out
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5157
According to Bicycling Magazine in San Diego "cyclist can count on at least $1 million a year from transportation tax." That is allot of dough to buy asphalt for paths. I don't imagine that when they fix a bike lane that they will ignore the pothole in the road. By the way what fund do you think they charge it to and have you ever seen the way people drive out here.
LittleBigMan
02-01-02, 10:51 PM
Look at the trends. How much space has been paved for motor vehicles? How much space has been paved for cycling/dog-walking?
Are you feeling like Geronimo, yet?
Are you feeling like Geronimo, yet?
Chris L
02-02-02, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by RetroLung
check this one out
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5157
Yes, it's almost identical to a gang-bashing in Brisbane a couple of years ago that occurred on the Southbank bike path. It could quite easily have happened anywhere. And your point is?
Originally posted by RetroLung
According to Bicycling Magazine in San Diego "cyclist can count on at least $1 million a year from transportation tax." That is allot of dough to buy asphalt for paths.
Yes it is. It is also a hell of a lot more dough to spend useful facilities like road shoulders (which, in my experience, are always safer and faster than bikepaths).
Originally posted by RetroLung
I don't imagine that when they fix a bike lane that they will ignore the pothole in the road.
And that is exactly my point. Whether or not bikepaths are built, roads will always be maintained better, hence I will always ride on the road.
Originally posted by RetroLung
By the way what fund do you think they charge it to
Who cares? My original point was that there is only ever going to be so many $ collected from taxes in total, and only so many of those spend on things that can be used by cyclists. I'm still yet to be convinced that bikepaths (glorified sidewalks/footpaths) are anything other than a total waste of these $ by comparison to on-road facilities and shoulders.
Originally posted by RetroLung
have you ever seen the way people drive out here.
I am assuming from your posts that they can be reasonably expected to stay within the confines of the road (if you claim to be safe from them off the road). That means they must be more competent than those here. Still doesn't change much. Roads are always better constructed and infinitely safer than glorified footpaths.
check this one out
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5157
Yes, it's almost identical to a gang-bashing in Brisbane a couple of years ago that occurred on the Southbank bike path. It could quite easily have happened anywhere. And your point is?
Originally posted by RetroLung
According to Bicycling Magazine in San Diego "cyclist can count on at least $1 million a year from transportation tax." That is allot of dough to buy asphalt for paths.
Yes it is. It is also a hell of a lot more dough to spend useful facilities like road shoulders (which, in my experience, are always safer and faster than bikepaths).
Originally posted by RetroLung
I don't imagine that when they fix a bike lane that they will ignore the pothole in the road.
And that is exactly my point. Whether or not bikepaths are built, roads will always be maintained better, hence I will always ride on the road.
Originally posted by RetroLung
By the way what fund do you think they charge it to
Who cares? My original point was that there is only ever going to be so many $ collected from taxes in total, and only so many of those spend on things that can be used by cyclists. I'm still yet to be convinced that bikepaths (glorified sidewalks/footpaths) are anything other than a total waste of these $ by comparison to on-road facilities and shoulders.
Originally posted by RetroLung
have you ever seen the way people drive out here.
I am assuming from your posts that they can be reasonably expected to stay within the confines of the road (if you claim to be safe from them off the road). That means they must be more competent than those here. Still doesn't change much. Roads are always better constructed and infinitely safer than glorified footpaths.
Generic Rider
02-02-02, 08:39 AM
If you like them or not, I think we can all agree that there will never be bike paths everywhere, a cyclist will always have to use streets, at least to get to and from a path, if nothing else.
Most urban bike paths I've ridden on are usually along rivers or lakes (and below bridges) and only have 'intersections' every mile or two (or more). So, right off, there's less chance of conflict with cars. And less stopping means easier to maintain speed. Most do NOT ride along roads where you still have to stop at every intersection.
In riding bike trails in New York, Chicage, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Boston, Montrail, Toronto, Ottawa and several smaller cities and many rural trails, I don't recall seeing broken glass on a trail. I have ridden trails in areas that I didn't feel comfortable safty-wise. But I can say the same about streets.
A busy trail may slow me down, but that's not usually a problem. I'm enjoying riding and seeing others. I used to have problems with others when I felt I had to maintain my approx 15 mph speed. I would pass where I shouldn't have, push through people and make them uncomfortable. Now, I just slow down and wait, and ofter get 'thanks' from the others. I've found that most are 'self-preserving', and try not to cause conflicts also.
I still see a lot of hot-shot riders blowing along at maybe 17-20 mph, not slowing when they should, ofter not giving a vocal warning, actually endangering others, sometimes. This does NOT give cyclists a good reputation.
Of all the Trillion$ that have been spent on roads, I think the cyclinst/pedestrians are entitled to a few million. I believe the benefits outweight the costs, when you consider the health benefits to the commuter and recreation trail users.
So, I use the street when I have to, but just as soon ride an off-road trail.
Ken
Most urban bike paths I've ridden on are usually along rivers or lakes (and below bridges) and only have 'intersections' every mile or two (or more). So, right off, there's less chance of conflict with cars. And less stopping means easier to maintain speed. Most do NOT ride along roads where you still have to stop at every intersection.
In riding bike trails in New York, Chicage, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Boston, Montrail, Toronto, Ottawa and several smaller cities and many rural trails, I don't recall seeing broken glass on a trail. I have ridden trails in areas that I didn't feel comfortable safty-wise. But I can say the same about streets.
A busy trail may slow me down, but that's not usually a problem. I'm enjoying riding and seeing others. I used to have problems with others when I felt I had to maintain my approx 15 mph speed. I would pass where I shouldn't have, push through people and make them uncomfortable. Now, I just slow down and wait, and ofter get 'thanks' from the others. I've found that most are 'self-preserving', and try not to cause conflicts also.
I still see a lot of hot-shot riders blowing along at maybe 17-20 mph, not slowing when they should, ofter not giving a vocal warning, actually endangering others, sometimes. This does NOT give cyclists a good reputation.
Of all the Trillion$ that have been spent on roads, I think the cyclinst/pedestrians are entitled to a few million. I believe the benefits outweight the costs, when you consider the health benefits to the commuter and recreation trail users.
So, I use the street when I have to, but just as soon ride an off-road trail.
Ken
wabbit
02-02-02, 02:32 PM
I'm all for more bike paths, but they have their limitations. They can get clogged with traffic OTHER thna cyclists- blders, pedestrians, and really slow people wobbling along on bikes at 3 miles an hour- especially on weekends and when the weather is nice. If you want to go at a decent speed, they are not the ideal; however, they do keep you off the road at places where the traffic is bad. Frankly, I think we need bike lanes like they have in Belgium and the Netherlands, not just in the city but on highways so that we can go wherever we want. Of course, that's an ideal world. Rub a lamp!
John E
02-02-02, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by RetroLung
I can only go off what I have experienced in San Diego.
Fact: The 8 mile Bike path is alot on the silver strand in San Diego is much more enjoyable to ride then the east harbor route in which there is a bike route.
According to Bicycling Magazine in San Diego "cyclist can count on at least $1 million a year from transportation tax." That is allot of dough to buy asphalt for paths. I don't imagine that when they fix a bike lane that they will ignore the pothole in the road. By the way what fund do you think they charge it to and have you ever seen the way people drive out here.
Hi Retro,
If you have not already done so, please join SDCBC -- you could help us be even more effective.
I can only go off what I have experienced in San Diego.
Fact: The 8 mile Bike path is alot on the silver strand in San Diego is much more enjoyable to ride then the east harbor route in which there is a bike route.
According to Bicycling Magazine in San Diego "cyclist can count on at least $1 million a year from transportation tax." That is allot of dough to buy asphalt for paths. I don't imagine that when they fix a bike lane that they will ignore the pothole in the road. By the way what fund do you think they charge it to and have you ever seen the way people drive out here.
Hi Retro,
If you have not already done so, please join SDCBC -- you could help us be even more effective.
Chris L
02-02-02, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by wabbit
[B so that we can go wherever we want. Of course, that's an ideal world. Rub a lamp! [/B]
We can do so now. It's called the road. 86km this morning. That would have been a lot of circles on the glorified footpath.
[B so that we can go wherever we want. Of course, that's an ideal world. Rub a lamp! [/B]
We can do so now. It's called the road. 86km this morning. That would have been a lot of circles on the glorified footpath.
LittleBigMan
02-02-02, 06:30 PM
It's obvious that there are many "types" of bikepaths out there.
But I can only speak from my own experience. In Atlanta, bike paths are designed for one function: so-called, "recreational cycling."
Yet, having said that, I must also say that any "recreational cyclist" that heads for the bike path has two options:
1) An exceedingly dangerous sidewalk with 10 times as many intersections as the adjacent road;
2) A remote, yet beautiful rail-bed bike path stretching from Smyrna, Ga. (Northwest Metro Atlanta) and [eventually] the Alabama state line.
In both cases, these "bike paths" are not useful for the commuter, as either they lead several miles out of the way or they lead nowhere useful in particular.
("Hey, guys, let's load our bikes into the SUV and head to the bike trail. Our wives can pick us up later in Alabama...")
Bikes = toys. (Not that I wouldn't enjoy the fun, but I don't work in Alabama...)
But I can only speak from my own experience. In Atlanta, bike paths are designed for one function: so-called, "recreational cycling."
Yet, having said that, I must also say that any "recreational cyclist" that heads for the bike path has two options:
1) An exceedingly dangerous sidewalk with 10 times as many intersections as the adjacent road;
2) A remote, yet beautiful rail-bed bike path stretching from Smyrna, Ga. (Northwest Metro Atlanta) and [eventually] the Alabama state line.
In both cases, these "bike paths" are not useful for the commuter, as either they lead several miles out of the way or they lead nowhere useful in particular.
("Hey, guys, let's load our bikes into the SUV and head to the bike trail. Our wives can pick us up later in Alabama...")
Bikes = toys. (Not that I wouldn't enjoy the fun, but I don't work in Alabama...)
tourman
02-02-02, 07:28 PM
I guess it all comes down to where you live as to what type of bikepaths are available. In Ottawa for example there are 170 kms of pathways that interlink from all the suburbs running along the river and the canal. In most cases it is quicker to use the path than the road. Then we also have kms of rail to trail paths all over the province. These are not meant for serious commuting but however are good place for the recreational rider to spend time instead of on the road doing eratic things and giving the more serious rider a bad rep. Yes kids I believe there is room in the world for paths. Nobody forces you to use them but they are a great option especially if you are new to city. I would much rather ride the west side highway bike trail in Manhatten than ride on the road shared by 13 000 yellow taxis. Besides you all know that politicians will do whatever is popular at the moment. It goes with the name "poly " latin for many "tics" blood sucking creatures.
Just my two cents worth.:cool:
Just my two cents worth.:cool:
LittleBigMan
02-03-02, 07:01 PM
The bottom line is that in an urban setting, you can't have two
criss-crossing systems of paved roadways, one for cars and one for bikes. The result is madness, especially when the bike-system is designed by Mickey Mouse and Goofy.
If you accept such a system, that is, one that separates bikes from cars, you accept that bikes should not receive the same
treatment as cars: the convenience of operating your vehicle as safe, efficiently and quickly as possible from your home to your job, store, friend's house, or anywhere else you might want to go.
That's the logical argument against bike paths. Now here's the
real deal: the reason bikes are being separated from motor traffic onto paths is not because cyclists are screaming at politicians to do so. It is because planners have one objective in mind: streamline motor traffic, speed it up, add more lanes, accomodate more cars.
Bicycles are in the way. They slow down this utopian vision. The goal to building paths is the same goal Andrew Jackson had for the Native American population: get them the h*ll as far away from "us" as possible.
We all know where that lead to.
:thumbdown:
If this continues, we'll all be paying $5.00 per hour to ride our bikes in circles...indoors!
criss-crossing systems of paved roadways, one for cars and one for bikes. The result is madness, especially when the bike-system is designed by Mickey Mouse and Goofy.
If you accept such a system, that is, one that separates bikes from cars, you accept that bikes should not receive the same
treatment as cars: the convenience of operating your vehicle as safe, efficiently and quickly as possible from your home to your job, store, friend's house, or anywhere else you might want to go.
That's the logical argument against bike paths. Now here's the
real deal: the reason bikes are being separated from motor traffic onto paths is not because cyclists are screaming at politicians to do so. It is because planners have one objective in mind: streamline motor traffic, speed it up, add more lanes, accomodate more cars.
Bicycles are in the way. They slow down this utopian vision. The goal to building paths is the same goal Andrew Jackson had for the Native American population: get them the h*ll as far away from "us" as possible.
We all know where that lead to.
:thumbdown:
If this continues, we'll all be paying $5.00 per hour to ride our bikes in circles...indoors!
Palafo
02-03-02, 10:33 PM
I guess it depends on the bike path. In Manhattan, there's a nice one right along the river, it's a pleasant ride and often faster than riding in traffic. It gets crowded, but there are some fun spots to stop and look at the river and New Jersey. I think this path is a particularly good option for slowpokes, kids, families, roller bladers and the like. It's often the fastest way to ground zero.
The bike lanes on the streets in New York, however, are not always designed well -- they're often in the door zone. And trucks and even cops double park in them -- right before they ticket you for NOT using the separate lane. I tend to avoid streets with bike lanes.
There's another nice river path in Harrisburg, Pa., that takes you over car traffic. The peds are idiots but since the drivers act like they have never seen a bike on the road, it's a good option. There is not a lot of bike traffic so you have it to yourself, not counting the peds. To the south, in York, Pa., there's a nice trail along an old rail path -- it's countryside, quite nice. A mountain bike experience for roadies, I guess.
But some of the paths/lanes other posters have described do not sound like what I would be interested in -- but I would not deny them to others. It is a matter of taste and experience.
The bike lanes on the streets in New York, however, are not always designed well -- they're often in the door zone. And trucks and even cops double park in them -- right before they ticket you for NOT using the separate lane. I tend to avoid streets with bike lanes.
There's another nice river path in Harrisburg, Pa., that takes you over car traffic. The peds are idiots but since the drivers act like they have never seen a bike on the road, it's a good option. There is not a lot of bike traffic so you have it to yourself, not counting the peds. To the south, in York, Pa., there's a nice trail along an old rail path -- it's countryside, quite nice. A mountain bike experience for roadies, I guess.
But some of the paths/lanes other posters have described do not sound like what I would be interested in -- but I would not deny them to others. It is a matter of taste and experience.
John E
02-04-02, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by Pete Clark
If you accept such a system, that is, one that separates bikes from cars, you accept that bikes should not receive the same
treatment as cars:
That's the logical argument against bike paths. Now here's the
real deal: the reason bikes are being separated from motor traffic onto paths is not because cyclists are screaming at politicians to do so. [/i] [/B]
There is a tenable middle ground. On local, traffic-calmed roads with low speed limits, we take the lane and mix in with traffic. On fast arterials, we do need wide curb lanes, continuous shoulders, or marked bike lanes (it probably does not matter which). At dangerous intersections, i.e., those with high-speed free merges, diverges, weaves, and turns, I welcome short, safe ("separate-but-equal") bypasses. Lawful vehicular cyclists, bicycle commuters, and car-free folk need to speak up to be heard over the casual cyclists who like the sport but are terrified of traffic and do not perceive the consequences of marginalization.
If you accept such a system, that is, one that separates bikes from cars, you accept that bikes should not receive the same
treatment as cars:
That's the logical argument against bike paths. Now here's the
real deal: the reason bikes are being separated from motor traffic onto paths is not because cyclists are screaming at politicians to do so. [/i] [/B]
There is a tenable middle ground. On local, traffic-calmed roads with low speed limits, we take the lane and mix in with traffic. On fast arterials, we do need wide curb lanes, continuous shoulders, or marked bike lanes (it probably does not matter which). At dangerous intersections, i.e., those with high-speed free merges, diverges, weaves, and turns, I welcome short, safe ("separate-but-equal") bypasses. Lawful vehicular cyclists, bicycle commuters, and car-free folk need to speak up to be heard over the casual cyclists who like the sport but are terrified of traffic and do not perceive the consequences of marginalization.
Chris L
02-04-02, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by John E
At dangerous intersections, i.e., those with high-speed free merges, diverges, weaves, and turns, I welcome short, safe ("separate-but-equal") bypasses.
But these things are not really safe at all. I've seen them on the Pacific Motorway (on the few times I've bothered with that road). The exit and entry points of the path are invariably more dangerous than anything the motorway throws at you. At least on the Motorway, drivers are (usually) looking for other cars, so there's a pretty good chance you'll be seen. On the entry or exit of a bike path, there's nobody watching.
At dangerous intersections, i.e., those with high-speed free merges, diverges, weaves, and turns, I welcome short, safe ("separate-but-equal") bypasses.
But these things are not really safe at all. I've seen them on the Pacific Motorway (on the few times I've bothered with that road). The exit and entry points of the path are invariably more dangerous than anything the motorway throws at you. At least on the Motorway, drivers are (usually) looking for other cars, so there's a pretty good chance you'll be seen. On the entry or exit of a bike path, there's nobody watching.
fietser_ivana
02-04-02, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by wabbit
I'm all for more bike paths, but they have their limitations. They can get clogged with traffic OTHER thna cyclists- blders, pedestrians, and really slow people wobbling along on bikes at 3 miles an hour- especially on weekends and when the weather is nice. If you want to go at a decent speed, they are not the ideal; however, they do keep you off the road at places where the traffic is bad. Frankly, I think we need bike lanes like they have in Belgium and the Netherlands, not just in the city but on highways so that we can go wherever we want. Of course, that's an ideal world. Rub a lamp!
Wabbit, I AM from the netherlands and a lot of bike paths suck BIG TIME!
Why?
1. inside the city the paths can give you nice short cuts occasionally as many roads are banned for cyclists, but the downside is that they are often made of bricks, tiles and uprooted by trees..and if this isn't enough, the whole sewage, electricity etc. system is underneath.
2. you run the risk to be right hooked by right turning traffic, so to avoid this we have had a law that stated 'slow traffic yields to fast traffic'for over 55 years until European laws repealed this.. now we just deal with a tripling of stop signs on bike paths.
3. bike paths have weird designs so they meander a lot, newer bike paths are even worse, since moped bikers were banned off bike paths since about 2 years and now the new bike paths are designed with SLOW cyclists in mind
4. if I don't want to ride on bad bike paths, I can't ride on the road because that's ILLEGAL.. I will be ticketed and people will harass me most of the time.. I still ride on the road when I'm in a real hurry, especially at night.. (I'm very well lit though as I'm a randonneur who rides at night a lot) .
5. Our separate signing system is very lousy , we are banned from all major roads and bike paths meander into small towns and we have no idea where we are going since most maps are crappy and don't show what you need to know.. our smaller roads don't have numbers like the French roads and there's no map that shows the name of the roads except the full street atlas for the country, which is unsuitable.. that street atlas doesn't show bike paths though...
So here I am a fit and able-bodied cyclist with lots of time, who is fit enough to cycle everywhere I want to go, but who can't because it's too frustrating to get lost on the bloody Dutch bike path & signing system.. Because it's too frustrating to ride on crappy quality paths when traffic is zooming by..
The only things that keep me sane is the ability to ride long distance (100K or more) organised rides inside the season (March-September) where all turns are temporarily signposted (if the signs aren't stolen) OR cycle abroad... France is heaven on earth for instance.. and Canada or Cuba aren't bad either
Fietser_Ivana
I'm all for more bike paths, but they have their limitations. They can get clogged with traffic OTHER thna cyclists- blders, pedestrians, and really slow people wobbling along on bikes at 3 miles an hour- especially on weekends and when the weather is nice. If you want to go at a decent speed, they are not the ideal; however, they do keep you off the road at places where the traffic is bad. Frankly, I think we need bike lanes like they have in Belgium and the Netherlands, not just in the city but on highways so that we can go wherever we want. Of course, that's an ideal world. Rub a lamp!
Wabbit, I AM from the netherlands and a lot of bike paths suck BIG TIME!
Why?
1. inside the city the paths can give you nice short cuts occasionally as many roads are banned for cyclists, but the downside is that they are often made of bricks, tiles and uprooted by trees..and if this isn't enough, the whole sewage, electricity etc. system is underneath.
2. you run the risk to be right hooked by right turning traffic, so to avoid this we have had a law that stated 'slow traffic yields to fast traffic'for over 55 years until European laws repealed this.. now we just deal with a tripling of stop signs on bike paths.
3. bike paths have weird designs so they meander a lot, newer bike paths are even worse, since moped bikers were banned off bike paths since about 2 years and now the new bike paths are designed with SLOW cyclists in mind
4. if I don't want to ride on bad bike paths, I can't ride on the road because that's ILLEGAL.. I will be ticketed and people will harass me most of the time.. I still ride on the road when I'm in a real hurry, especially at night.. (I'm very well lit though as I'm a randonneur who rides at night a lot) .
5. Our separate signing system is very lousy , we are banned from all major roads and bike paths meander into small towns and we have no idea where we are going since most maps are crappy and don't show what you need to know.. our smaller roads don't have numbers like the French roads and there's no map that shows the name of the roads except the full street atlas for the country, which is unsuitable.. that street atlas doesn't show bike paths though...
So here I am a fit and able-bodied cyclist with lots of time, who is fit enough to cycle everywhere I want to go, but who can't because it's too frustrating to get lost on the bloody Dutch bike path & signing system.. Because it's too frustrating to ride on crappy quality paths when traffic is zooming by..
The only things that keep me sane is the ability to ride long distance (100K or more) organised rides inside the season (March-September) where all turns are temporarily signposted (if the signs aren't stolen) OR cycle abroad... France is heaven on earth for instance.. and Canada or Cuba aren't bad either
Fietser_Ivana
Chris L
02-04-02, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by fietser_ivana
Wabbit, I AM from the netherlands and a lot of bike paths suck BIG TIME!
Why?
1. inside the city the paths can give you nice short cuts occasionally as many roads are banned for cyclists,
I had always been under the impression that the Netherlands was cycle-friendly. Guess I was wrong. How many roads are cyclists banned from over there?
Wabbit, I AM from the netherlands and a lot of bike paths suck BIG TIME!
Why?
1. inside the city the paths can give you nice short cuts occasionally as many roads are banned for cyclists,
I had always been under the impression that the Netherlands was cycle-friendly. Guess I was wrong. How many roads are cyclists banned from over there?
fietser_ivana
02-04-02, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Chris L
I had always been under the impression that the Netherlands was cycle-friendly. Guess I was wrong. How many roads are cyclists banned from over there?
Outside villages or cities we have :
motorways (banned for cyclists)
National roads (banned for cyclists),
and provincial roads as well as local/rural roads (not banned)
Rural roads don't have bike paths most of the time and they are great for cycling as they don't have bike paths (yup) and are quiet.
Provincial roads are roads that can bear little traffic or a lot of traffic, mostly it's limited to rush hour.. These roads wil mostly have bike paths running along. The paths are generally fairly OK, but it greatly depends on who's doing the maintenance. It seems that while the province/state is responsible for the road, it's the local government that has to maintain the bike path, otherwise I have no explanation for the oftentimes abrupt difference in quality between two city boundaries.
National roads are again a bit more important than provincial roads, and a lot of them are now actually motorways with fly overs.. these are off limits to cyclists in most countries, but in this countries even the roads that aren't real motorways are off-limits.. This can even apply to some sections of provincial and local roads.
There will be a bike path running parallel to the main road most of the time.. sometimes it will be of decent quality (luckily the surface quality improved steadily over the past few years), but the main problem arises when they deviate away from the main road and you HAVE NO CLUE WHATSOEVER where you're heading for.. and when you do, you're angry as hell as you're going to ride 25% further than a car driver because you arent'allowed on the same roads.. e.g. the normal road will bypass all the towns and the bike paths will go in and out of those towns, hence not allowing someone to skip this if they are in a hurry.
The Netherlands is perhaps for its size the most densely inhabited western country. and has a gazillion roads. Only the motorways are decently numbered.. Try to get a computer program design you a route? No way... you can't! At least, that's what I heard from most people.
The most aggravating is that nearly invariably you have to follow inadequate signposts.. like when you're thinking this is the road to X, they only show Y and Z on the signpost.. it may be that the route you choose is correct, but it also may be that it is not...
I cannot see on the map whether I'm allowed to cycle on a certain road, so I can't judge whether I'm allowed to cross a river at a certain point (rivers are major obstacles in our country).. Let me give you an example.. back in 1997 when I was probably the craziest long-distance cycling woman in the NLs, I did a 200K ride in the SW of our country. I finished and didn't feel tired.. so decided to cycle back home.. home should be approximately 125-150K so no big deal I thought..
Well, it took me about 1,5 time as long to cycle the 170K (including major obligatory detours) home as it took me to ride the 200K brevet..
Another example: in 1998 I participated in the nonstop ride Paris to Amsterdam... riding in France was a no-brainer.. riding in Belgium was almost a no-brainer.. but riding in my own country was a major PAIN IN THE ***!!!! I think I got lost more than 5 and less than 10 times, had to ask for directions perhaps 3-6 times and was stuck behind whole teams of slow cyclists as it was a beautiful summer-Sunday..
Other people had been smarter and were supported by a pacing vehicle so they cycled on the roads... I was the only non-supported woman back then... it was a ride without controls, based on the fun and honour system..
BTW, I do cycle slowly quite often... I had wanted to check out the national recreational LF routes.. the result was that the cuesheets weren't included in the book, and the signs were missing.. so got lost again.. the maps provided weren't any help either..
Fietser_Ivana.. still fuming lava!
I had always been under the impression that the Netherlands was cycle-friendly. Guess I was wrong. How many roads are cyclists banned from over there?
Outside villages or cities we have :
motorways (banned for cyclists)
National roads (banned for cyclists),
and provincial roads as well as local/rural roads (not banned)
Rural roads don't have bike paths most of the time and they are great for cycling as they don't have bike paths (yup) and are quiet.
Provincial roads are roads that can bear little traffic or a lot of traffic, mostly it's limited to rush hour.. These roads wil mostly have bike paths running along. The paths are generally fairly OK, but it greatly depends on who's doing the maintenance. It seems that while the province/state is responsible for the road, it's the local government that has to maintain the bike path, otherwise I have no explanation for the oftentimes abrupt difference in quality between two city boundaries.
National roads are again a bit more important than provincial roads, and a lot of them are now actually motorways with fly overs.. these are off limits to cyclists in most countries, but in this countries even the roads that aren't real motorways are off-limits.. This can even apply to some sections of provincial and local roads.
There will be a bike path running parallel to the main road most of the time.. sometimes it will be of decent quality (luckily the surface quality improved steadily over the past few years), but the main problem arises when they deviate away from the main road and you HAVE NO CLUE WHATSOEVER where you're heading for.. and when you do, you're angry as hell as you're going to ride 25% further than a car driver because you arent'allowed on the same roads.. e.g. the normal road will bypass all the towns and the bike paths will go in and out of those towns, hence not allowing someone to skip this if they are in a hurry.
The Netherlands is perhaps for its size the most densely inhabited western country. and has a gazillion roads. Only the motorways are decently numbered.. Try to get a computer program design you a route? No way... you can't! At least, that's what I heard from most people.
The most aggravating is that nearly invariably you have to follow inadequate signposts.. like when you're thinking this is the road to X, they only show Y and Z on the signpost.. it may be that the route you choose is correct, but it also may be that it is not...
I cannot see on the map whether I'm allowed to cycle on a certain road, so I can't judge whether I'm allowed to cross a river at a certain point (rivers are major obstacles in our country).. Let me give you an example.. back in 1997 when I was probably the craziest long-distance cycling woman in the NLs, I did a 200K ride in the SW of our country. I finished and didn't feel tired.. so decided to cycle back home.. home should be approximately 125-150K so no big deal I thought..
Well, it took me about 1,5 time as long to cycle the 170K (including major obligatory detours) home as it took me to ride the 200K brevet..
Another example: in 1998 I participated in the nonstop ride Paris to Amsterdam... riding in France was a no-brainer.. riding in Belgium was almost a no-brainer.. but riding in my own country was a major PAIN IN THE ***!!!! I think I got lost more than 5 and less than 10 times, had to ask for directions perhaps 3-6 times and was stuck behind whole teams of slow cyclists as it was a beautiful summer-Sunday..
Other people had been smarter and were supported by a pacing vehicle so they cycled on the roads... I was the only non-supported woman back then... it was a ride without controls, based on the fun and honour system..
BTW, I do cycle slowly quite often... I had wanted to check out the national recreational LF routes.. the result was that the cuesheets weren't included in the book, and the signs were missing.. so got lost again.. the maps provided weren't any help either..
Fietser_Ivana.. still fuming lava!
wabbit
02-04-02, 05:53 PM
I never actually thought that the system was without its flaws, that's for sure. The Netherlands may be cycle friendly, but I always imagined there had to be a few catches- nothing ever works the way it's supposed to. I would imagine that the traffic turning right and cutting onto the bike lanes would be the one of the hassles- not to mention what can transpire with so many cyclists and motorists on the roads at the same time.
Speaking of which, the moronic Quebec government has decided to allow motorists to turn right on red lights. Fortunately, they have not extended this to Montreal, which is a rare instance of them actually thinking before doing. MOntreal motorists are, for the most part, hostile, and letting these idiots turn right on red would endanger ANYONE, not just cyclists. An example: a few weeks ago, I was crossing at a sort of complicated, three way cross walk where one of the signals is a pedestrian signal which changes into a flashing red hand. Of course, pedestrians STILL have th right of way even then, and motorists can't go until the red light actually changes to green. However, the signal barely gives you enough time to get across before it starts flashing. We were halfway across and this half-wit motorist waiting at the light starts to take off- right at us. Like hello? You're going to just run over us? You can't just wait until we get TO THE THE OTHER SIDE???? Montreal motorists are like this, so given the chance to turn on red, it's not likely they'll wait for cyclists. They barely wait for pedestrians and barely stop at stop signs. Turning right on red = cyclists as hood ornaments.
Speaking of which, the moronic Quebec government has decided to allow motorists to turn right on red lights. Fortunately, they have not extended this to Montreal, which is a rare instance of them actually thinking before doing. MOntreal motorists are, for the most part, hostile, and letting these idiots turn right on red would endanger ANYONE, not just cyclists. An example: a few weeks ago, I was crossing at a sort of complicated, three way cross walk where one of the signals is a pedestrian signal which changes into a flashing red hand. Of course, pedestrians STILL have th right of way even then, and motorists can't go until the red light actually changes to green. However, the signal barely gives you enough time to get across before it starts flashing. We were halfway across and this half-wit motorist waiting at the light starts to take off- right at us. Like hello? You're going to just run over us? You can't just wait until we get TO THE THE OTHER SIDE???? Montreal motorists are like this, so given the chance to turn on red, it's not likely they'll wait for cyclists. They barely wait for pedestrians and barely stop at stop signs. Turning right on red = cyclists as hood ornaments.
Chris L
02-04-02, 06:10 PM
Evidently it depeds on one's definition of "cycle friendly". The posts above by fietser_ivana indicate that perhaps a few planners should listen to some real world cyclists before trying to be "cycle friendly".
LittleBigMan
02-04-02, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by John E
[re: separating cyclists from motor traffic]
There is a tenable middle ground. On local, traffic-calmed roads with low speed limits, we take the lane and mix in with traffic. On fast arterials, we do need wide curb lanes, continuous shoulders, or marked bike lanes (it probably does not matter which).
This is my position almost exactly, except that bike lanes need tremendous improvement before they will be acceptable to me.
They are usually painted on streets that don't need them and contain so many dangerous obstacles that they are unusable anyway.
Another major objection I have to "bike facilities" is they sidestep the major issue: rather than teach motorists to coexist with cyclists and enforce existing traffic law (especially speed limits,) lilly-livered politicians who don't want to offend motorists offer unsuspecting cyclists a "Trojan horse" in the form of "safe, separate facilities."
They say, "Here, Johnny--you play over here with your own ball, and stay away from the field where the big boys are playing. You might get hurt," instead of saying, "This field is community property, usable by everyone. Make way."
:beer:
[re: separating cyclists from motor traffic]
There is a tenable middle ground. On local, traffic-calmed roads with low speed limits, we take the lane and mix in with traffic. On fast arterials, we do need wide curb lanes, continuous shoulders, or marked bike lanes (it probably does not matter which).
This is my position almost exactly, except that bike lanes need tremendous improvement before they will be acceptable to me.
They are usually painted on streets that don't need them and contain so many dangerous obstacles that they are unusable anyway.
Another major objection I have to "bike facilities" is they sidestep the major issue: rather than teach motorists to coexist with cyclists and enforce existing traffic law (especially speed limits,) lilly-livered politicians who don't want to offend motorists offer unsuspecting cyclists a "Trojan horse" in the form of "safe, separate facilities."
They say, "Here, Johnny--you play over here with your own ball, and stay away from the field where the big boys are playing. You might get hurt," instead of saying, "This field is community property, usable by everyone. Make way."
:beer:
fietser_ivana
02-04-02, 06:50 PM
But who's a real world cyclist.. the sad truth is that 99% of the people here use a bicycle for recreation in the weekends, riding their cars to the starting point of an organized ride or where a bike route starts.
Or, during the week, when DH uses the car, DW will do the grocery shopping on her upright bicycle.
These people don't ride the bike paths outside cities very much.. at first it was the moped rider who used them most extensively and these people still do that.. however, in the early 80s moped cyclists were forced to wear helmets.. just as in Australia happened with cyclists, happened here with mopeds. Sales plummeted...
Anyone who wants to ride over 5 K in distance is
- a roadie who isn't very interested in utility rides and is content with circuits without bike paths.. they are too busy with themelves to be bothered with improving roads for cyclists.
- a recreation cyclist who is afraid of cars and wants to stay away from them as far as possible, they ride the special designated LF routes.. as for panorama, these are nice.. but they are even worsely signposted than the 'normal' bike paths.
- a commuter, who may grumble most of all, but has accepted his /her fate and may have been able to design a route that gives him/her most satisfaction.
- a fool like me, who could afford a car, but is too much of a tightwad to have bought one, and after having discovered the virtues of cycling, thought to just cycle anywhere.. TOUGH LUCK! I've been disappointed too often...
Now I really know why 95% of the participants in weekend rides drive to the start of the ride. Now I know why most people, even avid cyclists, drive to the spinning class.. bike storage facilities have dwindled as well..
No, as a matter of fact, the only thriving cycling that still takes place is either recreational when speed doesn't matter or urban ultilitarian cycling when people have accepted the badly maintained bike paths just like convicts who have forgotten about freedom and are brainwashed that cars are dangerous.. which becomes a sel-fulfilling prophecy as riding on the road, rather than on the bike path results in major harassment and expensive tickets... been there done that.. and still doing it..
Urban cycling will always remain viable as our cities are so congested and because of neat short cuts that are only feasible for cyclists.. that you're nearly always beating a car driver when you have to cross a small to medium sized city. DESPITE the bloody bike paths.. but I don't see myself riding long utilitarian rides anymore... nope.. unless I emigrate to France or some other real bike-friendly nation.
Thanks to the good financial position of the country, most surfaces of roads that were blasphemously bad in the past 15 years seem to have been resurfaced..
Or, during the week, when DH uses the car, DW will do the grocery shopping on her upright bicycle.
These people don't ride the bike paths outside cities very much.. at first it was the moped rider who used them most extensively and these people still do that.. however, in the early 80s moped cyclists were forced to wear helmets.. just as in Australia happened with cyclists, happened here with mopeds. Sales plummeted...
Anyone who wants to ride over 5 K in distance is
- a roadie who isn't very interested in utility rides and is content with circuits without bike paths.. they are too busy with themelves to be bothered with improving roads for cyclists.
- a recreation cyclist who is afraid of cars and wants to stay away from them as far as possible, they ride the special designated LF routes.. as for panorama, these are nice.. but they are even worsely signposted than the 'normal' bike paths.
- a commuter, who may grumble most of all, but has accepted his /her fate and may have been able to design a route that gives him/her most satisfaction.
- a fool like me, who could afford a car, but is too much of a tightwad to have bought one, and after having discovered the virtues of cycling, thought to just cycle anywhere.. TOUGH LUCK! I've been disappointed too often...
Now I really know why 95% of the participants in weekend rides drive to the start of the ride. Now I know why most people, even avid cyclists, drive to the spinning class.. bike storage facilities have dwindled as well..
No, as a matter of fact, the only thriving cycling that still takes place is either recreational when speed doesn't matter or urban ultilitarian cycling when people have accepted the badly maintained bike paths just like convicts who have forgotten about freedom and are brainwashed that cars are dangerous.. which becomes a sel-fulfilling prophecy as riding on the road, rather than on the bike path results in major harassment and expensive tickets... been there done that.. and still doing it..
Urban cycling will always remain viable as our cities are so congested and because of neat short cuts that are only feasible for cyclists.. that you're nearly always beating a car driver when you have to cross a small to medium sized city. DESPITE the bloody bike paths.. but I don't see myself riding long utilitarian rides anymore... nope.. unless I emigrate to France or some other real bike-friendly nation.
Thanks to the good financial position of the country, most surfaces of roads that were blasphemously bad in the past 15 years seem to have been resurfaced..
Chris L
02-04-02, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by fietser_ivana
But who's a real world cyclist..
What I mean is the people who actually ride most of the km. I'm involved in cycling advocacy here on the Gold Coast on the east coast of Australia, and around here, very few people who actually ride more than 50km/week have any interest at all in bike paths. Even fewer actually use them. Yet many cycling advocates get excited when a new one is built. Why?
This is the point I'm trying to make here. The bikepaths are designed because the parent is worried that their kid is going to be hit by a car riding the 200 metres to school. Meanwhile the commuter (who actually rides much more than that) is ignored. If the second group were actually consulted before spending the $3million per annum "cycling budget", I would suggest we'd have vastly different facilities.
But who's a real world cyclist..
What I mean is the people who actually ride most of the km. I'm involved in cycling advocacy here on the Gold Coast on the east coast of Australia, and around here, very few people who actually ride more than 50km/week have any interest at all in bike paths. Even fewer actually use them. Yet many cycling advocates get excited when a new one is built. Why?
This is the point I'm trying to make here. The bikepaths are designed because the parent is worried that their kid is going to be hit by a car riding the 200 metres to school. Meanwhile the commuter (who actually rides much more than that) is ignored. If the second group were actually consulted before spending the $3million per annum "cycling budget", I would suggest we'd have vastly different facilities.
Feldman
02-04-02, 09:16 PM
No, I'd rather not have bikepaths. What I would rather have would be a separating of MOTOR vehicle use from the rest of the American legal system, with the condition existing that we who drive cars would consent to live in a full-bore fascist police state while we do so. The operation assumption should be that if you want your civil rights, if you want to live under the Constitution's protections while traveling, that you should walk, ride a bike, or use some form of public transportation. How about, for starters, a federal Highway Patrol that would be a branch of the military and cite and prosecute miscreant drivers under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
LittleBigMan
02-05-02, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Feldman
How about, for starters, a federal Highway Patrol that would be a branch of the military and cite and prosecute miscreant drivers under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
(tongue firmly planted in cheek: )
I'm not sure what that "miltary justice code" is, but 40,000 Americans are already paying the maximum possible sentence every year: death. And the only crime is driving American roads.
It's actually safer to ride a bike for one hour than to drive for one hour. This statistic is slanted, however, in that it includes children and wrong-way cyclists.
How about, for starters, a federal Highway Patrol that would be a branch of the military and cite and prosecute miscreant drivers under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
(tongue firmly planted in cheek: )
I'm not sure what that "miltary justice code" is, but 40,000 Americans are already paying the maximum possible sentence every year: death. And the only crime is driving American roads.
It's actually safer to ride a bike for one hour than to drive for one hour. This statistic is slanted, however, in that it includes children and wrong-way cyclists.
Chris L
02-06-02, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by Pete Clark
(tongue firmly planted in cheek: )
Pete, I have seen Feldman's posts on other forums, and let me tell you, he isn't joking! Whether or not you agree with him, he certainly says what he thinks.
(tongue firmly planted in cheek: )
Pete, I have seen Feldman's posts on other forums, and let me tell you, he isn't joking! Whether or not you agree with him, he certainly says what he thinks.
Palafo
02-06-02, 08:44 AM
A roadside execution now and then, with the driver's body left to rot in the sun as an example to others who fail to follow the traffic laws.... Somehow I think they'd figure out a way to punish bicyclists first. Make it legal to sideswipe you if you fail to signal a turn or wear the right reflectors.
Oh, wait, maybe that already is the way it works.
Oh, wait, maybe that already is the way it works.
MichaelW
02-06-02, 01:23 PM
Dont joke. In the UK insurance companies try to refuse payoputs because the cyclist was not wearing bright yellow , or a helmet when attatched by a driver.
The latest case from UK, lady riding a bike on bike lane , inside of stopped queue of cars. One cars flashes an approaching car that its OK to turn across the lane. Car hits cyclist. Insurance company refuse to pay out becuase the bike lane was dangerous, claiming the local council should bear full liability.
GGGRRRRRRRRRRR
The latest case from UK, lady riding a bike on bike lane , inside of stopped queue of cars. One cars flashes an approaching car that its OK to turn across the lane. Car hits cyclist. Insurance company refuse to pay out becuase the bike lane was dangerous, claiming the local council should bear full liability.
GGGRRRRRRRRRRR
fietser_ivana
02-06-02, 02:13 PM
I thought the following message would be useful. It's written by an extremely nice and thoughtful lady.
Cooperative Cycling: An Introduction To Bicycling Safely With Traffic
Imagine, for a moment, if everyone drove around the roads at random, without stopping, yielding, keeping a straight line, checking behind, or obeying any traffic rules. The public roads would be total, utter chaos. Fortunately, we have carefully designed, commonly accepted rules of the road, which make driving on the roads a well-organized, cooperative, and relatively safe activity.
Sadly, most bicyclists in the USA don't use these rules. It's not really their fault; many have been told to do things that are illegal and dangerous -- such as riding on sidewalks or on the wrong side of the road. We simply don't teach bicyclists how to be safe by using all the rules of the road to politely cooperate with other drivers -- not just signaling turns, but merging, changing lanes, yielding to others, using lights at night, and more.
Yet because bicycling is so forgiving, the number of persons who die while bicycling in the US is very small: fewer than 900 per year. That's compared to 5,000 pedestrians, almost 40,000 in cars, over 60,000 from air pollution, and many hundreds of thousands from lack of exercise. Overall, bicycling is safer than motorcycling, horse-riding, water-skiing, or swimming. In fact, about 85% of all bicycle crashes requiring medical help didn't involve a moving car at all; the bicyclist simply slid, fell, or ran into something. Bicycling is just a slightly-risky sport; and like in any other sport, that’s why helmets and gloves are important protection.
Here’s the critical part: in the car/bike crashes, over 9 out of 10 were common and predictable. They happened in front of the bicyclist, with crossing and turning traffic, at driveways, intersections, and in bikelanes. In addition, over 50% of adult cycling deaths involved bicycling at night without lights. So, improving bicycle safety in traffic is actually quite easy: because most car/bike crashes are predictable, they can usually be avoided by cyclists who have been taught how to do so.
There are thousands of people who bicycle in traffic daily, logging thousands of miles, year after year, without collision. These most-experienced bicyclists have developed a fairly easy, but in-depth, core of knowledge needed for a quality cyclist education. Through study and practice, Cooperative Cyclists learn that by politely using all the rules of the road to cooperate with other drivers, they can ride quite safely and comfortably with traffic. A complete Bicycle Drivers Manual can be studied at www.bicyclinglife.com.
An in-depth cycling education like this gives Cooperative Cyclists the freedom to travel on any road, day or night, with reasonable safety. Unlike bikelanes "cycling education is self-deployed wherever needed, increases in effectiveness with every use, at no additional cost, and provides complete coverage by being used at every time and location where its use is in any way advantageous." (John Forester). Bikelanes are a terrible substitute for an in-depth cycling education. A bikelane is not a protected space: crossing and turning traffic still has to be safely and cooperatively negotiated at all driveways, intersections, bus stops, and parking spaces.
"Cyclists Fare Best When They Act And Are Treated As Drivers Of Vehicles." (John Forester)
Under the law, bicyclists follow the rules for slow-moving vehicles, the same as farm vehicles, construction machines, antique cars and horse-buggies. Slow vehicles travel to the right IF there is safe space: faster vehicles wait until they can pass safely. Other than that, everyone is supposed to follow the same rules.
The ride-to-the-right rule for bicyclists is simply another version of this, but is so widely misunderstood that most people believe it says cyclists must always stay right, or in the bikelane. This isn’t so.
When bicyclists squeeze over to the right, they end up colliding with parked car doors, sliding on sand or debris, or getting squeezed between hazards. That is why in most states, the rule actually says: "ride to the right
*EXCEPT* when passing, turning left, or to avoid objects, parked cars, moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface or other hazards; or when in a vehicle lane too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to pass safely, side by side, within the lane."
Conditions like these are common when bicycling. Traffic law clearly says that to avoid them, don’t stay right.
Safe bicyclists will politely *merge* left and ride nearer the center of a vehicle lane, instead of squeezing next to hazards -- just as any safe driver would do. Some may think this unsafe: but please note that there is only one general rule in the law for safe bicycling, and it instructs that safe bicyclists behave the same as safe drivers:
"Every person riding a bicycle shall have all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to other drivers."
The rules of the road have to be the same for everyone if they are to safely and cooperatively interact with each other. As one police chief says, "This is just common sense and standard traffic rules."
Bicyclists must understand that they are responsible for making themselves safer and more respected. Politely taking enough space for your own safety is the heart and core of safely cycling in traffic. You can't be safe unless you're willing to take some space; even if you have to delay some cars.
The most experienced bicyclists will politely, firmly, and legally use the full lane when it’s needed, and ride comfortably in a safe-space zone away from hazards. Doing so makes them safer by being more visible to other drivers at driveways and intersections, where most collisions occur. It prevents motorists from squeezing past in narrow lanes; they simply have to wait or go around. While a 20-30 second wait may be annoying, and occasionally someone might honk, riding this way is the best way to ensure safety.
This is called Cooperative Cycling (also known as Vehicular Cycling and Bicycle Driving). It is the only national standard for safe bicycling that is based upon using all the standard traffic rules to politely cooperate with other drivers. There is extensive science to support it: decades of overall traffic-safety studies, studies of common bicycle and car/bike crashes, and studies of how the most-experienced cyclists log thousands of miles in traffic, year after year, yet have 80% fewer accidents than untrained cyclists.
Of course, there is much more to it. Cooperative Cyclists ride in a straight line along with traffic, and move sideways by politely merging; exactly the same way other drivers change lanes. They create a safe-space zone around the bicycle by riding about 4 ft. away from parked cars, curbs, or hazards. They merge, yield, and change lanes just like other drivers. They always use lights at night. They avoid getting squeezed in narrow lanes or when hazards are ahead by politely merging left, and riding nearer the center of a vehicle lane until the hazards are past. Please study the Bicycle Drivers Manual at www.bicyclinglife.com .
Cyclist education is the key to cyclist safety. Everyone operates in traffic throughout their lives: even the youngest children walk and ride on sidewalks, with cross traffic at driveways. Later they cross streets, bicycle on neighborhood roads, and as teens they bike in traffic, and then start driving. We should be teaching traffic education continuously and in-depth throughout the grade school years, in a progression from careful pedestrian to cooperative cyclist to attentive motorist.
"Nobody ever died from not knowing how to play flag football. Yet we spend tax money teaching kids its nuances in gym classes, while bicycle safety is still foreign to most school curriculums." Don Cuerdon
Even a simple public awareness campaign can help. In Charlottesville Va., area police and media reminded motorists that bicyclists have equal rights to use a full lane when needed. Libraries distributed the Bicycle Driver’s Manual mentioned above. Many bicyclists reported slightly increased cycling, and better behavior from both motorists and cyclists.
That’s all it takes: educate cyclists, educate the public, and encourage fair and equal enforcement of existing traffic laws. Every road user, including bicyclists, must practice safety first. Traffic rules define the safest way known for sharing public roads: apply the same principles, the same rules, and the same rights to every individual: and hold each individual responsible for their behavior, and their behavior alone. We not only have to share our public roads -- we should be sharing the ideal of safety for everyone on the road. Every person, without exception, has a fundamental civil right to use, be safe, and be protected by the law, on our public roads.
Thank you for your time and consideration. And thank you for bicycling!
Lauren Cooper , Professional Bicycle Commuter
Comments? CycleMedia@hotmail.com (c) 2001, 2002 Lauren Cooper Permission to copy with credit, and distribute for free, is granted.
Cooperative Cycling: An Introduction To Bicycling Safely With Traffic
Imagine, for a moment, if everyone drove around the roads at random, without stopping, yielding, keeping a straight line, checking behind, or obeying any traffic rules. The public roads would be total, utter chaos. Fortunately, we have carefully designed, commonly accepted rules of the road, which make driving on the roads a well-organized, cooperative, and relatively safe activity.
Sadly, most bicyclists in the USA don't use these rules. It's not really their fault; many have been told to do things that are illegal and dangerous -- such as riding on sidewalks or on the wrong side of the road. We simply don't teach bicyclists how to be safe by using all the rules of the road to politely cooperate with other drivers -- not just signaling turns, but merging, changing lanes, yielding to others, using lights at night, and more.
Yet because bicycling is so forgiving, the number of persons who die while bicycling in the US is very small: fewer than 900 per year. That's compared to 5,000 pedestrians, almost 40,000 in cars, over 60,000 from air pollution, and many hundreds of thousands from lack of exercise. Overall, bicycling is safer than motorcycling, horse-riding, water-skiing, or swimming. In fact, about 85% of all bicycle crashes requiring medical help didn't involve a moving car at all; the bicyclist simply slid, fell, or ran into something. Bicycling is just a slightly-risky sport; and like in any other sport, that’s why helmets and gloves are important protection.
Here’s the critical part: in the car/bike crashes, over 9 out of 10 were common and predictable. They happened in front of the bicyclist, with crossing and turning traffic, at driveways, intersections, and in bikelanes. In addition, over 50% of adult cycling deaths involved bicycling at night without lights. So, improving bicycle safety in traffic is actually quite easy: because most car/bike crashes are predictable, they can usually be avoided by cyclists who have been taught how to do so.
There are thousands of people who bicycle in traffic daily, logging thousands of miles, year after year, without collision. These most-experienced bicyclists have developed a fairly easy, but in-depth, core of knowledge needed for a quality cyclist education. Through study and practice, Cooperative Cyclists learn that by politely using all the rules of the road to cooperate with other drivers, they can ride quite safely and comfortably with traffic. A complete Bicycle Drivers Manual can be studied at www.bicyclinglife.com.
An in-depth cycling education like this gives Cooperative Cyclists the freedom to travel on any road, day or night, with reasonable safety. Unlike bikelanes "cycling education is self-deployed wherever needed, increases in effectiveness with every use, at no additional cost, and provides complete coverage by being used at every time and location where its use is in any way advantageous." (John Forester). Bikelanes are a terrible substitute for an in-depth cycling education. A bikelane is not a protected space: crossing and turning traffic still has to be safely and cooperatively negotiated at all driveways, intersections, bus stops, and parking spaces.
"Cyclists Fare Best When They Act And Are Treated As Drivers Of Vehicles." (John Forester)
Under the law, bicyclists follow the rules for slow-moving vehicles, the same as farm vehicles, construction machines, antique cars and horse-buggies. Slow vehicles travel to the right IF there is safe space: faster vehicles wait until they can pass safely. Other than that, everyone is supposed to follow the same rules.
The ride-to-the-right rule for bicyclists is simply another version of this, but is so widely misunderstood that most people believe it says cyclists must always stay right, or in the bikelane. This isn’t so.
When bicyclists squeeze over to the right, they end up colliding with parked car doors, sliding on sand or debris, or getting squeezed between hazards. That is why in most states, the rule actually says: "ride to the right
*EXCEPT* when passing, turning left, or to avoid objects, parked cars, moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface or other hazards; or when in a vehicle lane too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to pass safely, side by side, within the lane."
Conditions like these are common when bicycling. Traffic law clearly says that to avoid them, don’t stay right.
Safe bicyclists will politely *merge* left and ride nearer the center of a vehicle lane, instead of squeezing next to hazards -- just as any safe driver would do. Some may think this unsafe: but please note that there is only one general rule in the law for safe bicycling, and it instructs that safe bicyclists behave the same as safe drivers:
"Every person riding a bicycle shall have all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to other drivers."
The rules of the road have to be the same for everyone if they are to safely and cooperatively interact with each other. As one police chief says, "This is just common sense and standard traffic rules."
Bicyclists must understand that they are responsible for making themselves safer and more respected. Politely taking enough space for your own safety is the heart and core of safely cycling in traffic. You can't be safe unless you're willing to take some space; even if you have to delay some cars.
The most experienced bicyclists will politely, firmly, and legally use the full lane when it’s needed, and ride comfortably in a safe-space zone away from hazards. Doing so makes them safer by being more visible to other drivers at driveways and intersections, where most collisions occur. It prevents motorists from squeezing past in narrow lanes; they simply have to wait or go around. While a 20-30 second wait may be annoying, and occasionally someone might honk, riding this way is the best way to ensure safety.
This is called Cooperative Cycling (also known as Vehicular Cycling and Bicycle Driving). It is the only national standard for safe bicycling that is based upon using all the standard traffic rules to politely cooperate with other drivers. There is extensive science to support it: decades of overall traffic-safety studies, studies of common bicycle and car/bike crashes, and studies of how the most-experienced cyclists log thousands of miles in traffic, year after year, yet have 80% fewer accidents than untrained cyclists.
Of course, there is much more to it. Cooperative Cyclists ride in a straight line along with traffic, and move sideways by politely merging; exactly the same way other drivers change lanes. They create a safe-space zone around the bicycle by riding about 4 ft. away from parked cars, curbs, or hazards. They merge, yield, and change lanes just like other drivers. They always use lights at night. They avoid getting squeezed in narrow lanes or when hazards are ahead by politely merging left, and riding nearer the center of a vehicle lane until the hazards are past. Please study the Bicycle Drivers Manual at www.bicyclinglife.com .
Cyclist education is the key to cyclist safety. Everyone operates in traffic throughout their lives: even the youngest children walk and ride on sidewalks, with cross traffic at driveways. Later they cross streets, bicycle on neighborhood roads, and as teens they bike in traffic, and then start driving. We should be teaching traffic education continuously and in-depth throughout the grade school years, in a progression from careful pedestrian to cooperative cyclist to attentive motorist.
"Nobody ever died from not knowing how to play flag football. Yet we spend tax money teaching kids its nuances in gym classes, while bicycle safety is still foreign to most school curriculums." Don Cuerdon
Even a simple public awareness campaign can help. In Charlottesville Va., area police and media reminded motorists that bicyclists have equal rights to use a full lane when needed. Libraries distributed the Bicycle Driver’s Manual mentioned above. Many bicyclists reported slightly increased cycling, and better behavior from both motorists and cyclists.
That’s all it takes: educate cyclists, educate the public, and encourage fair and equal enforcement of existing traffic laws. Every road user, including bicyclists, must practice safety first. Traffic rules define the safest way known for sharing public roads: apply the same principles, the same rules, and the same rights to every individual: and hold each individual responsible for their behavior, and their behavior alone. We not only have to share our public roads -- we should be sharing the ideal of safety for everyone on the road. Every person, without exception, has a fundamental civil right to use, be safe, and be protected by the law, on our public roads.
Thank you for your time and consideration. And thank you for bicycling!
Lauren Cooper , Professional Bicycle Commuter
Comments? CycleMedia@hotmail.com (c) 2001, 2002 Lauren Cooper Permission to copy with credit, and distribute for free, is granted.
fietser_ivana
02-06-02, 02:14 PM
An Open Letter To Drivers
Dear Driver:
Over 40 million Americans, young and old, want to bicycle on public roads. Sadly, most are afraid to do so, in large part because drivers sometimes squeeze past them too closely. Even though most drivers don’t mean any harm, this frightening and illegal behavior has scared millions of bicyclists off the roads. Please remember that the laws in every state require that "Drivers shall pass at a safe distance & reasonable speed." (Va. DMV)
Almost everyone has forgotten that when there isn’t safe space for passing, then bicyclists should use the whole vehicle lane, and motorists wait their turn. Please remember that, no matter how we feel about it, every person has a fundamental civil right to equal access, and safe passage, on public roads. This is, and has always been, the law: "Every person riding a bicycle shall have all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to other drivers."
Please understand that when bicyclists squeeze over to the right, they end up squeezed between hazards, sliding on sand or debris, or colliding with parked car doors. That is why, bikelane or not, in most states the ride-right rule for bicyclists has always been: "ride to the right *EXCEPT* when passing, turning left, or to avoid objects, parked cars, moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface or other hazards; or when in a vehicle lane too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to pass safely, side by side, within the lane."
Safe bicyclists will politely *merge* left and ride nearer the center of a vehicle lane, instead of squeezing next to hazards -- just as any safe driver would do. Some may think this unsafe: but please note that there is only one general rule in the law for safe bicycling, and it instructs that safe bicyclists behave the same as safe drivers:
"Every person riding a bicycle shall have all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to other drivers."
So please remember: whether in a bikelane, crosswalk, or not, squeezing past scares people. Please keep a safe distance when passing bicyclists and pedestrians, no matter where they are on the road. If you can’t pass safely, please wait. The law has always required that we share public roads equally, and safely, with everyone.
***
Bicyclists, in turn, must understand that *they* can do the most to make themselves safer, and more respected. Thousands of bicyclists ride in traffic every day, year after year, without collision. These Cooperative Cyclists have learned, in-depth, to use all the rules of the road to politely cooperate with other drivers: not only to signal, but to politely merge, yield, change lanes, use lights at night -- All the rules. They are rarely squeezed past, and studies show that they are far safer than other cyclists -- as safe as drivers overall.
(Please see www.bikeleague.org and study the Bicycle Drivers Manual at www.bicyclinglife.com )
Police and prosecutors don’t always protect the right of bicyclists and pedestrians to be safe. Sometimes this is because cyclists, overall, tend to act unlawfully. But our laws say we are not responsible for the bad behavior of other people. So please: enforce our common-sense traffic laws fairly, and equally. Please concentrate on unsafe individuals who endanger others: most especially, those who use their vehicle to harass or threaten others, squeeze too close to bicyclists or pedestrians, or ride without lights at night.
Please remember that the roads were not built just for cars: before the car, public roads in the USA were already being paved for bicyclists. Every pedestrian and bicyclist, without exception, has a fundamental civil right to use, be safe, and be protected by the law, on public roads.
Please note that every State Drivers’ Manual recommends that safe practice for motorists is:
"Adjust your speed for blind hills, curves, pedestrians, bicyclists, and slow-moving vehicles.
These conditions make the posted speed limit unsafe. By law, you must drive slower.
It is your responsibility to adjust your driving to assure everyones safety."
Thank you for your time and careful consideration.
Chief J.W. Rittenhouse (Ret.) Charlottesville VA Police
Ms. Lauren Cooper, Professional Bicycle Commuter
Comments & Questions: CycleMedia@yahoo.com Permission to copy and distribute with credit is granted.
Dear Driver:
Over 40 million Americans, young and old, want to bicycle on public roads. Sadly, most are afraid to do so, in large part because drivers sometimes squeeze past them too closely. Even though most drivers don’t mean any harm, this frightening and illegal behavior has scared millions of bicyclists off the roads. Please remember that the laws in every state require that "Drivers shall pass at a safe distance & reasonable speed." (Va. DMV)
Almost everyone has forgotten that when there isn’t safe space for passing, then bicyclists should use the whole vehicle lane, and motorists wait their turn. Please remember that, no matter how we feel about it, every person has a fundamental civil right to equal access, and safe passage, on public roads. This is, and has always been, the law: "Every person riding a bicycle shall have all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to other drivers."
Please understand that when bicyclists squeeze over to the right, they end up squeezed between hazards, sliding on sand or debris, or colliding with parked car doors. That is why, bikelane or not, in most states the ride-right rule for bicyclists has always been: "ride to the right *EXCEPT* when passing, turning left, or to avoid objects, parked cars, moving vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface or other hazards; or when in a vehicle lane too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to pass safely, side by side, within the lane."
Safe bicyclists will politely *merge* left and ride nearer the center of a vehicle lane, instead of squeezing next to hazards -- just as any safe driver would do. Some may think this unsafe: but please note that there is only one general rule in the law for safe bicycling, and it instructs that safe bicyclists behave the same as safe drivers:
"Every person riding a bicycle shall have all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to other drivers."
So please remember: whether in a bikelane, crosswalk, or not, squeezing past scares people. Please keep a safe distance when passing bicyclists and pedestrians, no matter where they are on the road. If you can’t pass safely, please wait. The law has always required that we share public roads equally, and safely, with everyone.
***
Bicyclists, in turn, must understand that *they* can do the most to make themselves safer, and more respected. Thousands of bicyclists ride in traffic every day, year after year, without collision. These Cooperative Cyclists have learned, in-depth, to use all the rules of the road to politely cooperate with other drivers: not only to signal, but to politely merge, yield, change lanes, use lights at night -- All the rules. They are rarely squeezed past, and studies show that they are far safer than other cyclists -- as safe as drivers overall.
(Please see www.bikeleague.org and study the Bicycle Drivers Manual at www.bicyclinglife.com )
Police and prosecutors don’t always protect the right of bicyclists and pedestrians to be safe. Sometimes this is because cyclists, overall, tend to act unlawfully. But our laws say we are not responsible for the bad behavior of other people. So please: enforce our common-sense traffic laws fairly, and equally. Please concentrate on unsafe individuals who endanger others: most especially, those who use their vehicle to harass or threaten others, squeeze too close to bicyclists or pedestrians, or ride without lights at night.
Please remember that the roads were not built just for cars: before the car, public roads in the USA were already being paved for bicyclists. Every pedestrian and bicyclist, without exception, has a fundamental civil right to use, be safe, and be protected by the law, on public roads.
Please note that every State Drivers’ Manual recommends that safe practice for motorists is:
"Adjust your speed for blind hills, curves, pedestrians, bicyclists, and slow-moving vehicles.
These conditions make the posted speed limit unsafe. By law, you must drive slower.
It is your responsibility to adjust your driving to assure everyones safety."
Thank you for your time and careful consideration.
Chief J.W. Rittenhouse (Ret.) Charlottesville VA Police
Ms. Lauren Cooper, Professional Bicycle Commuter
Comments & Questions: CycleMedia@yahoo.com Permission to copy and distribute with credit is granted.
LittleBigMan
02-06-02, 04:55 PM
Fietser Ivana,
Since you have a habit of taking the words right out of my mouth
(and saying them much better than I could,) why don't I just step out of the way and let you say it all?
:beer:
Since you have a habit of taking the words right out of my mouth
(and saying them much better than I could,) why don't I just step out of the way and let you say it all?
:beer:
fietser_ivana
02-06-02, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Pete Clark
Fietser Ivana,
Since you have a habit of taking the words right out of my mouth
(and saying them much better than I could,) why don't I just step out of the way and let you say it all?
:beer:
Sorry.. it weren't my words.. they were from Lauren Cooper, one of the nices vehicular cyclists I ever met!
Fietser Ivana,
Since you have a habit of taking the words right out of my mouth
(and saying them much better than I could,) why don't I just step out of the way and let you say it all?
:beer:
Sorry.. it weren't my words.. they were from Lauren Cooper, one of the nices vehicular cyclists I ever met!
LittleBigMan
02-06-02, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by fietser_ivana
... it weren't my words.. they were from Lauren Cooper, one of the nices vehicular cyclists I ever met!
What amazes me is how we so often think alike!
:)
... it weren't my words.. they were from Lauren Cooper, one of the nices vehicular cyclists I ever met!
What amazes me is how we so often think alike!
:)
LittleBigMan
02-06-02, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by fietser_ivana
Please note that every State Drivers’ Manual recommends that safe practice for motorists is:
"Adjust your speed for blind hills, curves, pedestrians, bicyclists, and slow-moving vehicles.
These conditions make the posted speed limit unsafe. By law, you must drive slower."
The television news yesterday said that a young lady was killed
on a sharp curve. She was not speeding, yet driving too fast for wet conditions.
Now, the county has decided to change the road, making it straighter.
That may be a good idea. But sympathy for her death only makes the truth more clear: we need to teach people how to drive.
Please note that every State Drivers’ Manual recommends that safe practice for motorists is:
"Adjust your speed for blind hills, curves, pedestrians, bicyclists, and slow-moving vehicles.
These conditions make the posted speed limit unsafe. By law, you must drive slower."
The television news yesterday said that a young lady was killed
on a sharp curve. She was not speeding, yet driving too fast for wet conditions.
Now, the county has decided to change the road, making it straighter.
That may be a good idea. But sympathy for her death only makes the truth more clear: we need to teach people how to drive.
swekarl
02-06-02, 06:31 PM
As many have suggested, it’s all about what ”type” of bikepath it is.
If it’s plain and doesn’t make a strange turn at every intersection, and if it’s free from broken glass and sunday-shopping pedestrians, then I like bikepaths. Unfortunately this is never the case, so therefore I prefer biking on the road.
Type is also about purpose. If I want to have a nice trip in a beautiful setting with no noise from cars, then a bikepath is great. But if I want to commute and reach my destination as fast as possible, then I wanna go with the cars.
I think that essay that Chris linked to made a lot of sense, but things needn’t necessarily be that black and white.
If it’s plain and doesn’t make a strange turn at every intersection, and if it’s free from broken glass and sunday-shopping pedestrians, then I like bikepaths. Unfortunately this is never the case, so therefore I prefer biking on the road.
Type is also about purpose. If I want to have a nice trip in a beautiful setting with no noise from cars, then a bikepath is great. But if I want to commute and reach my destination as fast as possible, then I wanna go with the cars.
I think that essay that Chris linked to made a lot of sense, but things needn’t necessarily be that black and white.
swekarl
02-06-02, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Palafo
A roadside execution now and then, with the driver's body left to rot in the sun as an example to others who fail to follow the traffic laws.... Somehow I think they'd figure out a way to punish bicyclists first. Make it legal to sideswipe you if you fail to signal a turn or wear the right reflectors.
Oh, wait, maybe that already is the way it works.
I can’t complain about the situation in Sweden. If a driver and a cyclist crash, it’s the driver’s insurance that pays out money to both parts – no matter who’s fault it was. And all drivers have to have this insurance, anything else is against the law.
A roadside execution now and then, with the driver's body left to rot in the sun as an example to others who fail to follow the traffic laws.... Somehow I think they'd figure out a way to punish bicyclists first. Make it legal to sideswipe you if you fail to signal a turn or wear the right reflectors.
Oh, wait, maybe that already is the way it works.
I can’t complain about the situation in Sweden. If a driver and a cyclist crash, it’s the driver’s insurance that pays out money to both parts – no matter who’s fault it was. And all drivers have to have this insurance, anything else is against the law.
Chris L
02-06-02, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by Pete Clark
Now, the county has decided to change the road, making it straighter.
That may be a good idea. But sympathy for her death only makes the truth more clear: we need to teach people how to drive.
But how many roads are they going to try to straighten. Furthermore, how many can't be straightened because of where they are. When are they going to stop looking for excuses and realise that the competence level of the average driver is simply not sufficient for the awesome responsibility that goes with using an automobile.
Now, the county has decided to change the road, making it straighter.
That may be a good idea. But sympathy for her death only makes the truth more clear: we need to teach people how to drive.
But how many roads are they going to try to straighten. Furthermore, how many can't be straightened because of where they are. When are they going to stop looking for excuses and realise that the competence level of the average driver is simply not sufficient for the awesome responsibility that goes with using an automobile.
Allister
02-06-02, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by fietser_ivana
I thought the following message would be useful. It's written by an extremely nice and thoughtful lady.
Cooperative Cycling: An Introduction To Bicycling Safely With Traffic
Imagine, for a moment, ...
Lauren Cooper , Professional Bicycle Commuter
I have only two comments on this excellent article.
1 - If commuting is her profession, where does she commute to? and
2 - She sure uses the word 'politely' a lot.
I thought the following message would be useful. It's written by an extremely nice and thoughtful lady.
Cooperative Cycling: An Introduction To Bicycling Safely With Traffic
Imagine, for a moment, ...
Lauren Cooper , Professional Bicycle Commuter
I have only two comments on this excellent article.
1 - If commuting is her profession, where does she commute to? and
2 - She sure uses the word 'politely' a lot.
John E
02-07-02, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by fietser_ivana
I thought the following message would be useful. It's written by an extremely nice and thoughtful lady.
Cooperative Cycling: An Introduction To Bicycling Safely With Traffic
"Cyclists Fare Best When They Act And Are Treated As Drivers Of Vehicles." (John Forester)
This is called Cooperative Cycling (also known as Vehicular Cycling and Bicycle Driving).
Lauren Cooper , Professional Bicycle Commuter
I have had the privilege of meeting Lauren and discussing "lawful vehicular cycling" on her periodic visits to San Diego. I concur with her observations, attitude, and recommendations. She considers herself a "Professional Bicycle Commuter" in the sense that she not only meets most of her transportation needs through cycling, as many of us do, but that she is out there actively pushing for motorist and bicyclist education and mutual respect.
I thought the following message would be useful. It's written by an extremely nice and thoughtful lady.
Cooperative Cycling: An Introduction To Bicycling Safely With Traffic
"Cyclists Fare Best When They Act And Are Treated As Drivers Of Vehicles." (John Forester)
This is called Cooperative Cycling (also known as Vehicular Cycling and Bicycle Driving).
Lauren Cooper , Professional Bicycle Commuter
I have had the privilege of meeting Lauren and discussing "lawful vehicular cycling" on her periodic visits to San Diego. I concur with her observations, attitude, and recommendations. She considers herself a "Professional Bicycle Commuter" in the sense that she not only meets most of her transportation needs through cycling, as many of us do, but that she is out there actively pushing for motorist and bicyclist education and mutual respect.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.