Living Car Free - We need better bicycle lanes

The weather here in Seattle has been remarkably glorious for the last few days, and as a result, the number of people out and about on their bicycles has pretty much exploded. I'm not complaining, mind you -the more cyclists there are, the safer we all are, etc.- but it has made me notice how paltry the bike accommodations are in this city. Bike lanes, for example, tend to be poorly designed. Most of them are located in the "door zone" next to an endless row of parked cars, and all of them are pretty narrow. With the greater number of bicyclists out there now, if you need to pass another cyclist, you have to pull out into the car lane, which would be okay, but several roads with bike lanes have been placed on a "road diet,' which means there's only one lane for cars in each direction, so they can't really go around you, either, especially if there's a lot of traffic, and in Seattle there's usually a good bit of traffic. It's almost easier to just stick with an arterial with no bike lane, but that has two car lanes in each direction, and just take the right lane.

A solution to this problem of too little room/too much car & bike traffic has occurred to me: ban on-street parking on arterial roads. That way, you could create a wide, safe bike lane free of car doors, and even have enough room left over for two car lanes in each direction, if you got rid of the center turn lane. It seems like a win-win solution to me, except for the people who have to find another place to park their cars. I find I'm not too sympathetic, though; why should people have the right to place huge, unattended, privately-owned machines on heavily-used public thoroughfares, thus interfering with commerce and public safety?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3579/3474156204_21602e2643.jpg

In many countries, they realized that people didn't ride because they didn't feel safe.
Instead of ignoring this and asking people to drive, they built infrastructure (http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/2009/04/friday-afternoon-in-copenhagen.html) to support
cycling and reduced infrastructure available to cars. Maybe someday we'll try this here!

The few bike lanes we do have here are pretty pathetic, so I just take the right 1/3 of the lane usually -enough a big SUV can't try to split the lane and brush past me, but it's still fairly easy to pass me. This works well for me, but Iowa drivers are notoriously well behaved.

I've often wondered if it wouldn't make sense to have a one way bike lane on one side of the street, and diagonal parking on the other (I'm not a big fan of parallel parking - but I guess that's not my problem anymore!). It would be a bit of an inconvenience to have bike traffic restricted to one way on some streets, but it might be a worth while trade off. Left hand turns might be a bit more difficult, though. Anyway, just a thought I've had.

We're starting to get more bike lanes (the painted lines). That IMO is a good start, however I would like to start seeing more "Dutch/Danish" style segregated bike lanes.

The few bike lanes in my town aren't near any parallel parking spots, but they are routinely used for passing at full speed (50+mph). Needless to say, I try to avoid them.

You mean that the 3" to the right of the fog line isn't the bike path? :eek:

Hopefully when your city is planning on implementing new infrastructure they ask for public opinion. Having a lot of cyclists come out to give input is really key.

For a number of reasons that I'd prefer not to detail again, I am not in favor of the European-style cycletrack for North American cities. I prefer "bike boulevards" (which we have in Portland) -- traffic-calmed, 25 mph streets with signage and special crossings. For the 'burbs, these can be complemented with cut-through paths where residential streets terminate, as well as dedicated bridge and tunnel paths across barriers like highways, railroad tracks, rivers and streams.

For a number of reasons that I'd prefer not to detail again, I am not in favor of the European-style cycletrack for North American cities. I prefer "bike boulevards" (which we have in Portland) -- traffic-calmed, 25 mph streets with signage and special crossings. For the 'burbs, these can be complemented with cut-through paths where residential streets terminate, as well as dedicated bridge and tunnel paths across barriers like highways, railroad tracks, rivers and streams.

+1. I don't think the Copenhagen plan would work for NA cities, or the cyclists who live in them.

I'm partial to good, high quality sharrow treatments, where they mark the holy bejeezuz out of the rightmost straight travel lane with bicycle track here arrows in the best VC spot to be, with other car lanes available and a conflict study done to get rid of the worst hook spots.

Another problem here is that most cyclists use the sidewalk instead of the street. This is obviously dangerous for pedestrians, and many bike safety experts claim that sidewalks are also more dangerous for the cyclists themselves. (Not to mention being slower and less efficient.)

I'm not sure that bike lanes are the answer to this problem. I often see cyclists on sidewalks that run parallel to existing BLs. I think we need better education for cyclists (and cagers), perhaps in combination with bike infrastructure.

It's almost easier to just stick with an arterial with no bike lane, but that has two car lanes in each direction, and just take the right lane. I like this traffic pattern. The street I live on has two very narrow lanes in each direction, with a center left-turn-only lane. This makes the street low stress for cycling and cagers don't get mad because they can usually pass bikes safely without altering their speed.



A solution to this problem of too little room/too much car & bike traffic has occurred to me: ban on-street parking on arterial roads. That way, you could create a wide, safe bike lane free of car doors, and even have enough room left over for two car lanes in each direction, if you got rid of the center turn lane. It seems like a win-win solution to me, except for the people who have to find another place to park their cars. I find I'm not too sympathetic, though; why should people have the right to place huge, unattended, privately-owned machines on heavily-used public thoroughfares, thus interfering with commerce and public safety?
I agree, mostly. But local streetfront business people say they can't compete with strip malls if they don't have parking right in front of the store. The last thing I want to see is more strip malls!

The Copenhagen plan is great for biking at 8 mph on a city bike. Not so great for biking somewhere in a hurry.

Also, I hate almost all bike lanes--- believe they are more dangerous than having none at all. Drivers ignore cyclists in bike lanes.


+1. I don't think the Copenhagen plan would work for NA cities, or the cyclists who live in them.

The Copenhagen plan is great for biking at 8 mph on a city bike. Not so great for biking somewhere in a hurry.


Most in Copenhagen average a speed of around 15-20kmh (10-13mph I believe) which is IMO perfect speed for commuting. Most people here travel at around that speed as well. On our major trail which connects a good chunk of our region, the speed limit is 20kmh.
And for me, if creating Copenhagen style bike lanes will get more people on bikes and out of cars, then that's a good thing.


Also, I hate almost all bike lanes--- believe they are more dangerous than having none at all. Drivers ignore cyclists in bike lanes.As much as I complain about drivers here, I should count myself fortunate. Even when I'm in the bike lane, drivers still move as far into the other lane as possible.

I'm not sure that bike lanes are the answer to this problem. I often see cyclists on sidewalks that run parallel to existing BLs. I think we need better education for cyclists (and cagers), perhaps in combination with bike infrastructure.

As of late last summer, the road I live on (fairly major) was redone, now with bike lanes. With the exception of kids, I get ticked off with the number of adult cyclists I see riding on the sidewalk despite there being a bl now.

Copenhagen and Amsterdam lanes are not quite the same, from what I've seen. The Danes get a dedicated street lane about as large as a standard automobile lane, whereas the Dutch get a grade-separated side path that is higher than the street and lower the than sidewalks, forcing them to do box-turns whenever they want to turn left.

I don't like the Dutch plan, but I wouldn't mind something similar to what the Danes have. The right lane could become the de facto "bike lane", and sharrows would mark it as as appropriate for bikes. Cars could use the lane, but with the understanding that it would be the "slow lane" or the "right turn lane" for them and they would have to yield to bikes. Dedicated bike lanes that cars have to cut across when turning right is really not ideal.

I'd also like it if streets were mandated to have four lanes or less, preferably three lanes with a center turn lane. 5-6 lane streets encourage highway speeds, and can be rather difficult to cross. Slowing down automobile speeds within city limits would do a lot to improve bikeability (and walkability), and certain design features could probably enforce this better than typically-ignored posted speed limit signs.

I like this traffic pattern. The street I live on has two very narrow lanes in each direction, with a center left-turn-only lane. This makes the street low stress for cycling and cagers don't get mad because they can usually pass bikes safely without altering their speed.


This type of arrangement is great where there is a low enough traffic volume so that drivers behind you can easily pull to the left lane. I live just off a street with the same arrangement and it is great when there isn't a ton of traffic.

Another thing that helps is a 4-lane street with some built-in traffic calming features. Where I live, there are numerous red lights, most of which are set to slow traffic down to the speed limit (25 mph). However, just east of my house, the same street has many fewer lights, the speed limit is up to 30mph and traffic is routinely traveling at 40-45mph.

But... I do agree... as long as the 4-lane has enough built-in traffic calming features, the double lane of traffic, possibly with some markings for bicycles (we just have Share the Road signs...) should work.

Another thing that would help is if we had more bicycle traffic on that 4-lane street. That would serve to slow traffic down and get the cars used to seeing bicycles.

You mean that the 3" to the right of the fog line isn't the bike path? :eek:

YOU GOT 3":eek::notamused: Around here half the fog line is painted on the dirt and grass at the edge of the road...if the edge is still there!:cry: Actually we do have a few with some space between the fog line and the edge...that is where all the trash collects.

Aaron:)

Another thing that has to be done is a massive re-education of motorists. In both Denmark and the Netherlands car drivers have a responsibility to avoid cyclists and pedestrians in the US it is more about placing the blame, and in many cases it seems the motorist is always right regardless of what happened. Also need to improve enforcement of existing traffic laws and make the penalties stick. There is absolutely no excuse for multiple DUI's and people driving without a license. We have had a rash of incidents here in NC where people were out on bail for a previous multiple DUI's and killed someone. Never should have been back on the road IMHO.

Aaron:)

Also, I hate almost all bike lanes--- believe they are more dangerous than having none at all. Drivers ignore cyclists in bike lanes.

I agree. Here in Philly, some of the bike lanes are really narrow, leaving you absolutely no room to get out of the way if a car shifts over. I was hit by a cab a few weeks ago because he was riding to the left of me and decided to make a right turn. There was nothing I could do but go up and over. There have been many close calls in the past with cars making right turns.

I think the bike lanes need to be painted a different color to make them really stand out. I think a lot of cars don't even realize they are there.

Also, it depends how you ride. If you are a fast rider you can typically just take the lane in most major cities and keep up with the flow of traffic. Often times the cars go slower then the bikes. The reason we still need well designed bike lanes is so that people who are not capable or don't want to keep up with cars can still get around by bicycle.

I don't like the Dutch plan, but I wouldn't mind something similar to what the Danes have. The right lane could become the de facto "bike lane", and sharrows would mark it as as appropriate for bikes. Cars could use the lane, but with the understanding that it would be the "slow lane" or the "right turn lane" for them and they would have to yield to bikes. Dedicated bike lanes that cars have to cut across when turning right is really not ideal.


This is a very good idea! I wonder how you go about making this sort of thing actually happen....

BTW, I think bike lanes are actually a good thing, overall. Among other things, they reduce conflicts with drivers, and they're infinitely better than MUPS. The problem with bike lanes is their design. Only today, I was riding in a bike lane and a car door suddenly flew open in front of me. Since it was a very narrow bike lane right next to parked cars, I had to swerve into the single "car" lane to avert disaster. Had there been a car behind me, I would've been faced with a choice of getting nailed by a car from behind, or nailing a very old, frail man trying to get out of his car, being tossed out into the street, and then getting nailed by a car from behind. A bike lane that's wide enough to avoid car doors, or a road on which there are no car doors, would have prevented this problem.

The right-lane-is-the-bike-lane idea that you have would solve these problems better, though... Too bad Seattle is in the middle of a bike-lane-painting binge.

This is a very good idea! I wonder how you go about making this sort of thing actually happen....

Haha, I have no idea. I suppose that it why I am a person who idly wishes for things, rather than an activist or politician.


BTW, I think bike lanes are actually a good thing, overall. Among other things, they reduce conflicts with drivers, and they're infinitely better than MUPS. The problem with bike lanes is their design. Only today, I was riding in a bike lane and a car door suddenly flew open in front of me. Since it was a very narrow bike lane right next to parked cars, I had to swerve into the single "car" lane to avert disaster. Had there been a car behind me, I would've been faced with a choice of getting nailed by a car from behind, or nailing a very old, frail man trying to get out of his car, being tossed out into the street, and then getting nailed by a car from behind. A bike lane that's wide enough to avoid car doors, or a road on which there are no car doors, would have prevented this problem.

I typically "white line" it on such bike lanes. That makes it so that I am just barely outside both the door zone and car lane. I'd ride in the car lane itself, but they get pissed if you're not using the lane designated for you. I think that this is a relatively safe way to ride, but it is very misleading for a lot of people.


The right-lane-is-the-bike-lane idea that you have would solve these problems better, though... Too bad Seattle is in the middle of a bike-lane-painting binge.

I think the right lane would definitely have to be marked with sharrows to indicate to drivers that you belong there, and also to inform cyclists that "it's okay" to ride there. There might also have to be some signs posted periodically telling drivers that cyclists effectively set the speed limit in said lane. I have read about sharrows being increasingly used, but I cannot remember where. The only thing that they do is make the present laws more explicit, but I think that's important, given how few cyclists and motorists alike are actually aware of them.

I think the right lane would definitely have to be marked with sharrows to indicate to drivers that you belong there, and also to inform cyclists that "it's okay" to ride there. There might also have to be some signs posted periodically telling drivers that cyclists effectively set the speed limit in said lane. I have read about sharrows being increasingly used, but I cannot remember where. The only thing that they do is make the present laws more explicit, but I think that's important, given how few cyclists and motorists alike are actually aware of them.

Current laws already dictate that we have a right to be on the road--sign or no sign--even when there is a bike lane present.

The hard part is getting motorists and cyclists aware of this. "Share the Road" signs are a little too vague. I would rather see more specific signs, like "Bikes have full rights to the road in Michigan." (Obviously with the name of the local state or country in place of Michigan.)

Also, I would like to see a couple questions about cyclists' rights on the written test for a driver's license.

From what I could tell when I went up to Caimbrdige/Boston a few months ago the only thing I would use a bike lane for is an outer door-zone marker, and putting the lane inside cars just means the other door hits you. Be a man and take the lane, I don't want them(bike lanes) in my city.

I agree with uke, with the photo. The physical thing is easier than the people thing. Look at our public schools,
its really easy to hire contractors to build a nice school compared to the social issues surrounding education.
Where the bike lanes are poorly designed I too consider them a "door marker".

In some neighborhoods around here the bike lanes aren't for cyclists, they're explicitly "traffic calming" , they're designed to be a magnet to attract cyclists who slow the responsible drivers who in turn slow the irresponsible drivers. The stripping serve to narrow the perceived width of the car lane so again slowing responsible drivers when cyclists aren't around and thereby slowing the irresponsible drivers. Don't make the mistake of viewing all bike facilities-lanes or whatever as having been constructed to benefit cyclists- you'll only confuse yourself.

I'm not sure that bike lanes are the answer to this problem. I often see cyclists on sidewalks that run parallel to existing BLs. I think we need better education for cyclists (and cagers), perhaps in combination with bike infrastructure.

Most cyclists I see on sidewalks are Hispanic, and when I talk with them, their English isn't great. When they ride in the street, they consistently go against traffic. Turns out, in a lot of Central American countries, the law is cyclists should do *exactly* what they do. Since WI doesn't have an official bicycle manual, there is no easy way to get the rules of the road across to them... state webpages usually aren't written in Spanish!

Native Madisonians are prone to yelling at cyclists to get off the ***ing sidewalk, which isn't going to help in the face of a language barrier.

The next most common sidewalk rider is a white college student from the sticks. 9 times out of 10, they are being a lazy PITA and are riding on the sidewalk rather than deal with the maze of one way streets downtown. Sidewalk riding is illegal downtown, but the beat cops don't ticket for it.

From what I could tell when I went up to Caimbrdige/Boston a few months ago the only thing I would use a bike lane for is an outer door-zone marker, and putting the lane inside cars just means the other door hits you. Be a man and take the lane, I don't want them(bike lanes) in my city.

There are a lot of things that get called a "bike lane" that have no business having that name.

The average Madison bike lane is a full or half width lane, marked with a diamond. This means it's for buses, right turning cars, and bicycles. Ordinarily, there's no parking in such a lane, because you'd have to be an idiot to want a city bus plowing into your parked car. This is good, and I *like* that kind of bike lane. These mostly get used on arterials.

A few streets have door zone marker bike lanes... and that's exactly how you have to use them under current WI law. It's illegal here for a cyclist to ride within 3' of a parked car. These tend to be on slower streets tho, so taking the lane is no big deal.

I'm against stupid bike lanes too, but they don't *have* to be stupid. A lot of the time making a smart bike lane makes the road work better for everyone.

(also, there's no way in hell I'm magically getting a Y chromosome... so I'm not about to "man up" ;) )

Here in Dayton, OH I'm just happy when I see another cyclist properly in the street.

I.E. not a kid riding balls out into traffic on the shoulder on his BMX. I saw that today and cringed.

Torrilin, that sounds exactly like the designated "slow lane" that I was talking about. I think it would be awesome if all arterial streets in all cities had those. And they could be complemented by parallel "bike boulevards" residential streets. :thumb:

Gender war was not my intent X, Y who cares. I still don't need them I live in a soon to be 400 year old city with all the short narrow streets that suit cycling and walking. To put in specific cycle "improvements" would be a waste of good money that could be used for the two miles of bike trail we need to avoid a heavily trafficed arterial road. Money would be better spent paying cops to enforce the law and educate motorists.

...Most cyclists I see on sidewalks are Hispanic...

Here they are all races, nationalities, and social classes. At least people from foreign countries have the excuse that they learned under a different set of rules.

Gender war was not my intent X, Y who cares. I still don't need them I live in a soon to be 400 year old city with all the short narrow streets that suit cycling and walking. To put in specific cycle "improvements" would be a waste of good money that could be used for the two miles of bike trail we need to avoid a heavily trafficed arterial road. Money would be better spent paying cops to enforce the law and educate motorists.

Time spent following the Bike Lane Wars on the Advocacy & Safety forum has left me thinking that bike lanes are a great plan in some areas and a lame idea in other areas.

The big problem I see is that most traffic designers are not cyclists, so they really don't know which approach will work best on a given road. Also, I believe that they sometimes get federal funds for "other transportation" and the easiest thing to spend that money on is bike lanes.

Time spent following the Bike Lane Wars on the Advocacy & Safety forum has left me thinking that bike lanes are a great plan in some areas and a lame idea in other areas.

The big problem I see is that most traffic designers are not cyclists, so they really don't know which approach will work best on a given road. Also, I believe that they sometimes get federal funds for "other transportation" and the easiest thing to spend that money on is bike lanes.

Good summary.

I know of a place where there isn't a problem, its easy to cycle multiple safe routes etc. but it looks like the city wants to get rid of some motels by putting a bike path through their parking areas. The motels are fighting the plan. So another source of poorly thought out bike facilities is when they are maliciously designed.

Good summary.

I know of a place where there isn't a problem, its easy to cycle multiple safe routes etc. but it looks like the city wants to get rid of some motels by putting a bike path through their parking areas. The motels are fighting the plan. So another source of poorly thought out bike facilities is when they are maliciously designed.

If the city was smart they'd jus slap a 10 % room tax on those motels. They'd either get rid of them, or have some added revenues to send on intelligent road design.

If the city was smart they'd jus slap a 10 % room tax on those motels. They'd either get rid of them, or have some added revenues to send on intelligent road design.

They probably already did that the last time they raised taxes. I would love to figure out how so many of these shortsighted politicians figure they can continue to tax businesses at such a high rate. We have actually moved our crews from a hotel in one town to a different town because of the excessive tax rates on rooms. Now instead of having money for the local economy, you have 3 more vehicles on your roads every morning. FWIW the motel tax in the one town was 17%...on top of the 5% sales tax! That adds up when you have a block of 15 rooms.

Aaron:)

They probably already did that the last time they raised taxes. I would love to figure out how so many of these shortsighted politicians figure they can continue to tax businesses at such a high rate. We have actually moved our crews from a hotel in one town to a different town because of the excessive tax rates on rooms. Now instead of having money for the local economy, you have 3 more vehicles on your roads every morning. FWIW the motel tax in the one town was 17%...on top of the 5% sales tax! That adds up when you have a block of 15 rooms.

Aaron:)

Obviously it's easier for politicians to raise taxes on transients who can't vote for them. However motels sure do suck up more than their share of government services, especially police protection. I think they should be taxed at a higher rate.

Some motels do, some don't. A lot depends on how the area's social services are structured, and on how strong the community is. The town where I grew up depended on tourism a great deal, but the motels that were in town caused few problems. The ones out a ways that you had to drive to were a lot more problematic.

The built environment seems to have a strong effect on how people think and behave. Culture has a strong effect too... and when the two reinforce each other, things seem to work much better.

Obviously it's easier for politicians to raise taxes on transients who can't vote for them. However motels sure do suck up more than their share of government services, especially police protection. I think they should be taxed at a higher rate.

I won't stay at a hotel that has excessive police calls. I don't doubt some of the lower end ones do and they should be taxed/charged accordingly. You also have the fun and games of charges at airports. Again transient and businesses pay the cost. It does get passed on to the local populace in one form or another. Personally I think there needs to be a VAT on everything that is purchased in the US and abolish all other forms of taxes. But then you would have the fun of trying to distribute it equitably.

Aaron:)

Personally I think there needs to be a VAT on everything that is purchased in the US and abolish all other forms of taxes. But then you would have the fun of trying to distribute it equitably.

Aaron:)

VAT is a regressive tax, meaning that the poor shoulder an unfair burden. To make it neutral or progressive, you would have to pay rebates to low income people.

VAT is a regressive tax, meaning that the poor shoulder an unfair burden. To make it neutral or progressive, you would have to pay rebates to low income people.

That would be better than the *******ized system we have now...

Aaron:)

You also have the fun and games of charges at airports. Again transient and businesses pay the cost.
You ain't kidding. I rented a car at the Dallas Fort Worth Airport this week for 4 days at $31/day for a base charge of $124.00. Added on to this was:
Rental Car Facility Charge ($4/day) =$16
Customer Transportation Charge ($2.20/day) =$8.80
Percentage Fee (11.1%) =$16
Lic&Reg/PP Tax/Texas Reimbursement ($1.75 /day) =$7
City of Euless Motor Vehicle (5%) =$9.59
Motor Vehicle Rental Tax (10%) =$19.18

At least the car, a Chrysler Sebring gave exceptional mileage; over 30mpg for 700+ air conditioned miles mostly driving at 70mph through TX to LA and back to Dallas.

So, do we need better bike lanes?

The bike lanes out in Michigan are a joke. It appears that the individual or persons who paint the white line is under the influence of something liquid or perhaps some other drug. Bike lanes hold trash and other garabe. Some bike lanes last about a block and go straight into a tree or the highway. You would have to have a death wish to ride them:mad:

I think that we need more traffic calming, not more or "better" bike lanes. It doesn't even have to be done strictly in the name of bicycling. Chop those 4-6 lane thoroughfares down to three lanes with center turn lanes and wide outside lanes. Put in speed humps on residential streets. Maybe add barriers that allow pedestrians and cyclists to pass through, while diverting cars. A lot of neighborhoods do this to make their streets more safe for their kids to play in, without even having cyclists in mind. On low traffic streets that terminate (especially in the suburbs), a city could install bike/ped shortcuts that connect to the closest nearby street. If there is a network of low traffic routes that span an entire city, people will walk and cycle more often. Adding bike lanes to six lane expressways won't make the average person want to bike. The type of cyclists who would ride on such roads will do so regardless of whether or not bike lanes are present -- they don't really need government assistance.

Another problem here is that most cyclists use the sidewalk instead of the street. This is obviously dangerous for pedestrians, and many bike safety experts claim that sidewalks are also more dangerous for the cyclists themselves. (Not to mention being slower and less efficient.)

I'm not sure that bike lanes are the answer to this problem. I often see cyclists on sidewalks that run parallel to existing BLs. I think we need better education for cyclists (and cagers), perhaps in combination with bike infrastructure.

Make sure that EVERYONE knows that bicyclists belong on the road . Include a proper bike lane in the areas that need it. Enforce the freakin' laws. Police: Please please PLEASE ticket drivers that violate right of ways and red lights (drivers AND cyclists)

CE

I think that we need more traffic calming, not more or "better" bike lanes. It doesn't even have to be done strictly in the name of bicycling. Chop those 4-6 lane thoroughfares down to three lanes with center turn lanes and wide outside lanes. Put in speed humps on residential streets. Maybe add barriers that allow pedestrians and cyclists to pass through, while diverting cars. A lot of neighborhoods do this to make their streets more safe for their kids to play in, without even having cyclists in mind. On low traffic streets that terminate (especially in the suburbs), a city could install bike/ped shortcuts that connect to the closest nearby street. If there is a network of low traffic routes that span an entire city, people will walk and cycle more often. Adding bike lanes to six lane expressways won't make the average person want to bike. The type of cyclists who would ride on such roads will do so regardless of whether or not bike lanes are present -- they don't really need government assistance.

Excellent post; all of these are excellent ideas, and are things that even most non-cyclists would welcome.

So, do we need better bike lanes?

Are you done discussing the merits of Value Added Tax (VAT) on this thread? Does that mean everyone else must get back on topic too?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3579/3474156204_21602e2643.jpg

In many countries, they realized that people didn't ride because they didn't feel safe.
Instead of ignoring this and asking people to drive, they built infrastructure (http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/2009/04/friday-afternoon-in-copenhagen.html) to support
cycling and reduced infrastructure available to cars. Maybe someday we'll try this here!


You da man, uke. The ony way that I can see to get through the current cultural mindset is to make it safe and convenient/inconvenient through infrastructure incrementally. It has to be forced upon both cagers and cyclists. Hoping to educate them to work together is so painfully slow that it's practically useless. Especially when some don't even speak the same language. You have to just build it fool-proof and then move the orange barrels out of the way.

Here's the problem: roads in this country are primarily funded by gas tax and registration fees. Bikes contribute to neither. Money talks.

So ... I'd LOVE to see a fantastic bicycle infrastructure built around here, but unless I'm volunteering to pay into the system for my bicycle I find it hard to complain too loudly.

Here's the problem: roads in this country are primarily funded by gas tax and registration fees. Bikes contribute to neither. Money talks.

Highways are, not local roads.