Living Car Free - Three Wishes

If the government could wave a magic wand and make three improvements to your cycling facilities, what would they be?



Here are mine:


I want wider roads in the cities and towns .... not bike lanes, just wider roads ... and shoulders on all the highways.

I want secure bicycle locking facilities at shopping centres, malls, schools, offices, etc. Strasbourg had some good ones.

I want more public transportation, specifically trains on which bicycles would be allowed.

1)Reduce the speed limit for all motorized traffic to 25 mph except on highways where it would still be limited to 45, the best speed for gas milage.

2)Improved public transportation all around. Buses with bike racks that run 24/7, light rail, long distance high-speed trains.

3)Eliminate all government spending on auto infrastructure including subsidies for parking.

Too extreme? Maybe, but its my fairy tail.

To be honest, I really have just one wish. All I want is to be able to ride my bike on whichever road I happen to be riding on at that time in peace, without loser motorists trying to honk at me or run me off the road, or loser cycling "advocates" questioning why I would want to ride on said road. Everything else I can either work with or work around. That said, here are three things I think would be useful

1. Zero tolerance policing of ALL traffic offences for ALL road users, with set mandatory minimum penalties for breaches (which would depend of the seriousness of the offence and would increase for every prior conviction the offender has). If there aren't enough police for that, spend some of Mr Rudd's "stimulus" money on something other than middle-class welfare and fix that problem. Better yet, hold a comprehensive review of all things that are currently traffic offences and abolish any laws put in place solely to protect idiots from their own stupidity, and instead divert the resources used to police those into policing breaches of law that would involve the idiot hurting someone other than him/herself.

2. As pointed out earlier, it would be nice to have public transport that allowed bicycles, it would also be nice if said public transport was actually on time occasionally.

3. I'd actually be quite content with 1 and 2 on this list, and I'm having genuine difficulty thinking of anything to add here. Still, neither of them are ever likely to happen, and number 1 was a big one, so maybe that counts as two.

I would go with both sets of dreams (communal dreaming?:lol:)

More trains and buses period, with bikes being properly accommodated.

Better training and harsher penalties for drivers. Right now it seems they basically can do whatever they want with little or no repercussions. The laws need to change/be enforced to protect the vulnerable.

I also agree with reductions in speed limits on all but limited access highways.

Aaron:)

My fairy tale?

1. Dedicated bicycle pathways throughout the country - interconnected citywide, regionally, and nationally. City "beltlines" for bikes/peds. Also, federally mandated on-road wide bike lanes for a minimal % of local roads - meeting requirements not just for spacing, markings, and signs, but also for logistics/efficiency (expected distance to ride/walk between two points).

2. Education campaigns on TV, Web, etc that inform motorists of safely SHARING the road with cyclists. That, and enforcement of existing laws (what a concept!) and a media blitz showing enforcement of the laws. Mandatory "biker's education" as part of "driver's education" *before* getting a driving license, including hands-on and written tests.

3. Actual infrastructure to lock up bikes. Not just bike racks, but bike lockers, racks with built-in locks, and surveillance cameras to deter theives - where cyclists don't have to worry about seeing their bike again, and they don't have to load their bike with locks/etc. You can even charge a nominal daily/monthly fee to support the new system.

How to pay for all this? Huge taxes on gasoline to support/encourage all of the above, and discourage traffic, pollution, etc.

1. Zero tolerance policing of ALL traffic offences for ALL road users, with set mandatory minimum penalties for breaches (which would depend of the seriousness of the offence and would increase for every prior conviction the offender has).

I believe a "zero tolerance policy" would be one in which a particular punishment was given out regardless of the seriousness of the offense. We already have "mandatory minimum penalties" which increase for every prior conviction. A zero tolerance policy would be one that gives out the same penalty to everyone for any road violation.

I agree with you that it would be nice if there were harsher punishments for abusing the privilege of piloting a few tons of metal at high speeds. However, I dont think that paying for massive amounts of new police (also driving huge pieces of metal) is a very good way of doing that. Over here in South Korea there are simply speed cameras set-up on every few miles of roads, even rural roads. Korea also uses extensive amounts of closed circuit television cameras.

How about, for every traffic violation, regardless of severity, your current license becomes void and you have to retake drivers training and go back to the DMV and wait in the 4-hour line to get a new one? Also, you are only allowed three licenses every 5 years. Maybe you could be required to let other drivers know how many traffic violations you have accumulated by having the same number of big yellow warning flags streaming off of your car wherever you drive?

There are lots of good ways to get people to drive better without necessitating a massive police force that would, ideally, have absolutely nothing to do all day long. Ever get pulled over by a cop in a small town?

I know, nows whose dreaming right?

My main wishes have been mentioned, so I'll just elaborate a bit.

In the inner cities, I'd like to see "complete streets" that are totally redesigned to put cyclists, peds and buses on an equal (at least) par with cars. Not just sidewalks, bike lanes and bus lanes, but more innovative approaches where the whole street can be used by everybody.

In the suburbs, I'd like to see a return to grid street patterns with 90 degree controlled intersections. Get rid of the merges, diverges, complex intersections and yield signs. Back to the square!

In rural areas, I'd like to see wider lanes and good paved shoulders that are maintained, swept and plowed regularly.

Minor point--I'd like more public drinking fountains all over the place.

I have recently moved from Maine to California where I am living car free, and there are big differences between what I would wish for in one place vs the other, however, looking at it from the 50,000 ft level, the one big issue that I have with both places is that the infrastructure is designed to be car-centric. There is pretty decent public transit here in San Jose, and they do allow you to take your bike on board the trains, and buses have bike racks. However, there seems to be a prohibition on level grade crossings of the commuter train tracks (Caltrain). This makes the Caltrain line like a great wall for cyclists with very few roads which cross the tracks, and those mostly being major highways. Similarly there are freeways all over with few crossing points which make those appear as major barriers to local transportation. In my mind, highways are for transporting traffic between urban areas, not within. That said -

1) I would eliminate all freeways within city limits - have them skirt the edges of the town, with one or two exits to get into/out of the city but use the highway system as a network to get between cities, allowing the cities themselves to become much more friendly to bicycles and pedestrians.

2) Eliminate the subsidies that we have for personal automobile travel everything from foreign policy which is designed to assure our oil supply, to use of general tax revenue to pay for roads, to the lack of charging for the consequences of burning fossil fuels in our healthcare and quality of life. If the public feels obligated to subsidize transportation, then it should go towards public transportation.

3) Eliminate on street parking. On street parking makes driving more hazardous by reducing the sight lines, it forces us to design and build wider streets which makes communities less walkable, further, the cost of roadway construction is huge, and using our streets as parking lots is a large subsidy for motor traffic. With no on street parking, overall lane widths can be much less since the 'door zone' does not need to be accommodated.

4) Treat driving as a privilege, and take that privilege away from those drivers who have repeatedly proven that they are incapable of driving in a safe and courteous manner.

Note, I put down 4 replies when asked for 3. I assume that this is OK since driving 35 in a 25mph zone seems to be considered normal.....

I believe a "zero tolerance policy" would be one in which a particular punishment was given out regardless of the seriousness of the offense. We already have "mandatory minimum penalties" which increase for every prior conviction. A zero tolerance policy would be one that gives out the same penalty to everyone for any road violation.

I agree with you that it would be nice if there were harsher punishments for abusing the privilege of piloting a few tons of metal at high speeds. However, I dont think that paying for massive amounts of new police (also driving huge pieces of metal) is a very good way of doing that. Over here in South Korea there are simply speed cameras set-up on every few miles of roads, even rural roads. Korea also uses extensive amounts of closed circuit television cameras.

How about, for every traffic violation, regardless of severity, your current license becomes void and you have to retake drivers training and go back to the DMV and wait in the 4-hour line to get a new one? Also, you are only allowed three licenses every 5 years. Maybe you could be required to let other drivers know how many traffic violations you have accumulated by having the same number of big yellow warning flags streaming off of your car wherever you drive?

That's not what zero-tolerance refers to, maybe for clarity it should have read "no-excuse", but it's basically the same thing. Zero-t is not the same punishment for everything.

Basically, it would eliminate "I didn't see the bike", and "I'm on my way to XXXX, and that's why I was speeding." Speed, get a ticket. Turn w/o a signal, get a ticket. Get enough tickets, lose your license -- and have to fight like HE[[ to get it back!

OK, now my three, a lot like what's already been posted:

1. Mass transit that's bike-accessible; imagine, a train that took your bike aboard that rolled you from Indianapolis to Moab! A lot more focus on mass-transit travel goes hand-in-hand with this.

2. STRONG education for drivers; eliminate the sense of entitlement that seems to now seep up out of the upholstery.

3. Cyclists have preferential treatment on the road, not car drivers.

Minor point--I'd like more public drinking fountains all over the place.

And more public bathrooms..

Ok, my turn (this is fun...:)):
1. Implementation of techniques to slow car traffic down to allow peds and cyclists to use the streets. So... not wider streets...as Machka's wants, but possibly even narrower streets.
2. An education program geared to drivers and cyclists, with the intent of getting more cyclists on the roads.
3. A public transportation system where either bike or walking would provide the"last mile". So buses or trains would either allow bikes on board or secure parking stations would be provided at each central station.

I believe a "zero tolerance policy" would be one in which a particular punishment was given out regardless of the seriousness of the offense. We already have "mandatory minimum penalties" which increase for every prior conviction. A zero tolerance policy would be one that gives out the same penalty to everyone for any road violation.

Nope, a zero-tolerance policy would mean that everytime you violate the law you get a ticket (or whatever the punishment is). The police officer doesn't have the discretion to let someone off just because they are drunk (something that happens all the time here in Australia). BTW, we don't have those penalties here in Australia (which is probably why my home city is the scene of "reality TV" shows documenting the world's worst drivers). The sort of set penalties I was referring to are things that cannot be overturned by a judge if the driver is found guilty.


I agree with you that it would be nice if there were harsher punishments for abusing the privilege of piloting a few tons of metal at high speeds. However, I dont think that paying for massive amounts of new police (also driving huge pieces of metal) is a very good way of doing that. Over here in South Korea there are simply speed cameras set-up on every few miles of roads, even rural roads. Korea also uses extensive amounts of closed circuit television cameras.

They have speed cameras here in Australia, too, but they're largely used for revenue raising (in fact, some road signs around here suggest that the Queensland government seems to wear that as a badge of honour), rather than safety. That means that they won't put enough of them in to actually stop people from speeding, but just enough to collect the occasional fine which can be spent on something else -- assuming some wannabe social worker calling himself a 'judge' doesn't overturn it because the driver was drunk.


There are lots of good ways to get people to drive better without necessitating a massive police force that would, ideally, have absolutely nothing to do all day long.

Yeah, but the trouble is that most of those ideas have been tried and shown to fail. I think it's time to realise that there will always be a certain percentage of drivers who simply have no idea, and the best option is simply to remove them. That also applies to the same certain percentage of cyclists, BTW. The massive police force won't be necessary once people get the message, but right now we've got governments all over the place trying to spend us into debt because we're in a recession. Let's see the money used for something that might have some benefit.

3) Eliminate on street parking. On street parking makes driving more hazardous by reducing the sight lines, it forces us to design and build wider streets which makes communities less walkable, further, the cost of roadway construction is huge, and using our streets as parking lots is a large subsidy for motor traffic. With no on street parking, overall lane widths can be much less since the 'door zone' does not need to be accommodated.

I have to say that the streets around here have on street parking on both sides and are a dream to bicycle on (or walk along/across).... They're essentially single-lane roads... one car has to pull over to let another pass. This reduces traffic to just barely more than the people that live on this block, and reduces speeds to very reasonable levels. Very rarely does a car get up to even 20 mph on the roads, even though the speed limit is 25.

My list:

Traffic enforcement. I'd like it to be a top priority... I'm tired of cars running red lights, stop signs, etc., and tired of being harassed, buzzed, etc.

Less subsidy for driving... Bring the costs out into the open where everyone can see them... that includes roads, parking, gas, etc. People in general have NO idea where the money comes from or how much it costs to drive their cars.

Better mass transit: Buses, light rail, high-speed passenger rail.

Some bike racks here and there would be a good start.

Yeah, but the trouble is that most of those ideas have been tried and shown to fail.

Please enlighten me with a source or link to those ideas which have been shown to fail.

Massive policed force is a clear sign that whatever it is you as a society are doing to curb traffic violations is obviously not working IMHO.

Also, I disagree, respectfully, with people who want to remove street parking. In Sweden and Holland there is a line of reasoning that goes, anything you can do to make motorist feel less safe when traveling at high speeds is a good thing. Meaning that making streets very narrow, having blind curves and the like will actually make car drivers slow down. Where as in America we give drivers super wide lanes and huge lines of sight so that they can speed up! However, Americans have a sense of entitlement to the road so I think it is possible that they would drive recklessly either way... not too sure though. Any thoughts?

Also, I disagree, respectfully, with people who want to remove street parking. In Sweden and Holland there is a line of reasoning that goes, anything you can do to make motorist feel less safe when traveling at high speeds is a good thing....Any thoughts?

Please enlighten on the source of information about this Swedish and Dutch "line of thinking" and who is taking it seriously in Sweden, Holland or anywhere else.

If the government could wave a magic wand and make three improvements to your cycling facilities, what would they be?

Here are mine:


I want wider roads in the cities and towns .... not bike lanes, just wider roads ... and shoulders on all the highways.

I want secure bicycle locking facilities...

I want more public transportation, specifically trains on which bicycles would be allowed.


Believe it or not, this describes my commute here in Boston. :D


...

1) I would eliminate all freeways within city limits...

2) Eliminate the subsidies that we have for personal automobile travel...

3) Eliminate on street parking...

4) Treat driving as a privilege, and take that privilege away from those drivers who have repeatedly proven that they are incapable of driving in a safe and courteous manner....

My one realistic wish is for a limousine at my beck and call to take me home so I don't have to wait for the train. :rolleyes:

Please enlighten on the source of information about this Swedish and Dutch "line of thinking" and who is taking it seriously in Sweden, Holland or anywhere else.

Just a few to get you started. Enjoy! :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woonerf
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/05/20/traffic_design/index.html?pn=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
http://www.ivv.amsterdam.nl/
http://www.sfu.ca/city/city_pgm_video020.htm
http://www.velomondial.net/velomondiall2000/PDF/HONIG.PDF
http://www.fhi.se/en/Publications/Summaries/Active-transport--on-the-way-to-better-conditions-for-pedestrian-and-bicycle-traffic/

Just a few to get you started. Enjoy! :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woonerf
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/05/20/traffic_design/index.html?pn=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
http://www.ivv.amsterdam.nl/
http://www.sfu.ca/city/city_pgm_video020.htm
http://www.velomondial.net/velomondiall2000/PDF/HONIG.PDF
http://www.fhi.se/en/Publications/Summaries/Active-transport--on-the-way-to-better-conditions-for-pedestrian-and-bicycle-traffic/

Sorry, Roody, you are on a different page.
Please enlighten about which of these Monderman scheme references involve making motorists feel less safe when traveling at high speeds, or high speed road traffic at all. You might also enlighten about how many communities have adapted the Monderman scheme for anything beyond a few isolated trial applications in a few isolated locations.

Sorry, Roody, you are on a different page.
Please enlighten about which of these Monderman scheme references involve making motorists feel less safe when traveling at high speeds, or high speed road traffic at all. You might also enlighten about how many communities have adapted the Monderman scheme for anything beyond a few isolated trial applications in a few isolated locations.

Sorry I mishandled my assignment. :o

Of course, a lot of traffic engineering involves slowing traffic by, in effect, making speeding drivers feel less safe (even though engineers probably wouldn't phrase it this way). For example: narrower lanes, streetside parking, longer and shorter "dashes" in the pavement striping, choke points, and many other techniques. These are common practice worldwide.

It's very true that the Monderman techniques have not been widely adopted. If the "trial applications" prove to be successful, I'm sure that they'll be used more at some future time. It seems prudent to adopt such radical changes rather slowly, doesn't it?

Sorry I mishandled my assignment. :o

Of course, a lot of traffic engineering involves slowing traffic by, in effect, making speeding drivers feel less safe (even though engineers probably wouldn't phrase it this way). For example: narrower lanes, streetside parking, longer and shorter "dashes" in the pavement striping, choke points, and many other techniques. These are common practice worldwide.

It's very true that the Monderman techniques have not been widely adopted. If the "trial applications" prove to be successful, I'm sure that they'll be used more at some future time. It seems prudent to adopt such radical changes rather slowly, doesn't it?

I doubt if anyone would suggest that lowering speed limits is a mechanism for making drivers "feel less safe".

I agree that it only makes sense to try out the Monderman techniques very slowly, if at all. I believe it would be downright ignorant to extrapolate from one or two tiny trials "reported" by the cheerleading from a few proponents of the technique.

Ok, my turn (this is fun...:)):
1. Implementation of techniques to slow car traffic down to allow peds and cyclists to use the streets. So... not wider streets...as Machka's wants, but possibly even narrower streets.


My problem with narrowing the streets is that then the cyclists and motorized vehicles can't share the streets. If the streets are wide, then the car and the bicycle can be side by side and not get in each other's way. I am most comfortable when I cycle on wide streets, and the cars can zip past me without having to slow down for me.

Just a few to get you started. Enjoy! :)
[LIST=1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woonerf

The "woonerf" is an interesting concept, compared to shared space. Here autos are really on the defensive and it would be a great idea for some residential streets, where kids could actually play in the street. I remember where I lived on in Canada, where, at certain times of the year, the street became a street hockey arena. It was kind of a wonderful thing to see... kids out playing instead of glued to the tv... but cars didn't see if that way. This scenario would make a great woonerf... cars are restricted to 7 kmph.

My problem with narrowing the streets is that then the cyclists and motorized vehicles can't share the streets. If the streets are wide, then the car and the bicycle can be side by side and not get in each other's way. I am most comfortable when I cycle on wide streets, and the cars can zip past me without having to slow down for me.

What I don't like in the wide streets scenario is that it enables cars to speed. We have many wide, straight streets around here. Several of them have speed limits of 25mph, but most cars travel near 40.

The problem with cars that are unencumbered and travelling over 30mph is that a bicycle/car accident or even a ped/car accident is more likely to be fatal... and not for the driver of the car!

Slower moving traffic also make the street more livable. You wouldn't like a lot of cars speeding through your neighbourhood. You wouldn't feel that safe on the street. You wouldn't feel safe letting your kids out to play.

If cars need to speed, get on the freeway.

Otherwise, let the streets be designed for the inhabitants.

Slower moving traffic also make the street more livable. You wouldn't like a lot of cars speeding through your neighbourhood. You wouldn't feel that safe on the street. You wouldn't feel safe letting your kids out to play.



I don't mind if cars are speeding past me while I'm cycling. I'm the type who will ride on Hwy 2 between Calgary and Edmonton where the posted speed limit is 110 km/h, and the average actual speed is about 125 km/h.

The key is to have the road wide enough so that I am out of the way. And in the Hwy 2 example, there's a very wide shoulder ... so I'm way off to one side out of the way of the traffic.

The key is to have the road wide enough so that I am out of the way. And in the Hwy 2 example, there's a very wide shoulder ... so I'm way off to one side out of the way of the traffic.

Until you need to get into the left turn lane and have to cross three lanes of straight traffic doing 125k.... :(

Until you need to get into the left turn lane and have to cross three lanes of straight traffic doing 125k.... :(

That's what overpasses are for.

That's what overpasses are for.

I thought that is what sky hooks are for.

Well if we have the streets taken care of by someone’s wish and the locking or parking of bikes taken care of by someone’s wish and connecting cities taken care of by someone’s wish I only have two. It should be made legal to shove cyclists riding on the sidewalk and even in the wrong direction into traffic. Nighttime bike ninjas should be clothes lined as an example to others, but only if the other wishes come true in the first place. Relax it is only a wish.:lol:

Please enlighten me with a source or link to those ideas which have been shown to fail.

Forgive me for having a life outside the Internet and not necessarily having or needing a link to observe a trend that is actually happening out there in the real world.


Massive policed force is a clear sign that whatever it is you as a society are doing to curb traffic violations is obviously not working IMHO.

Isn't that basically what I said in my previous post? Besides, what's the point of having a police force at all if not to curb violations of the law? If you aren't going to penalise people for speeding, drunk driving, hit and run or whatever else, you might as well just legalise the lot and have done with it. At least then people will know what to expect when they take to the road.

About the only thing anybody does to try to curb traffic violations is waste money on "education" campaigns, which people routinely ignore. Have you ever wondered why, with all the millions that governments spend on "education", that the death toll on the roads continues to increase? Have you ever wondered why, with all the billions of dollars spent on road "improvements" every year that people are wiping themselves out in greater numbers on the roads? Surely that suggests that something else is needed, and thus far, about the only thing that hasn't been tried is actually removing the law breakers from the roads permanently.

Forgive me for having a life outside the Internet and not necessarily having or needing a link to observe a trend that is actually happening out there in the real world.



Isn't that basically what I said in my previous post? Besides, what's the point of having a police force at all if not to curb violations of the law? If you aren't going to penalise people for speeding, drunk driving, hit and run or whatever else, you might as well just legalise the lot and have done with it. At least then people will know what to expect when they take to the road.

About the only thing anybody does to try to curb traffic violations is waste money on "education" campaigns, which people routinely ignore. Have you ever wondered why, with all the millions that governments spend on "education", that the death toll on the roads continues to increase? Have you ever wondered why, with all the billions of dollars spent on road "improvements" every year that people are wiping themselves out in greater numbers on the roads? Surely that suggests that something else is needed, and thus far, about the only thing that hasn't been tried is actually removing the law breakers from the roads permanently.

If you are going to say something like "has been shown to fail" then there should be some sort of evidence or author that you are sighting. However, since this just seems to be made up from "your experiences" in the supposed "real world" then please state them as such in your posts so it will be easier in the future to see through your BS. Thats how crappy information gets circulated.

Aslo, its very easy to google the death toll on American, and Australian roads for any given year. Its also very easy to see that almost every year the death number has been reduced. In fact, the death total on US highways is at a RECORD low. See for yourself.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.f2217bee37fb302f6d7c121046108a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=1e51531b2220b0f8ea14201046108a0c_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_1e51531b2220b0f8ea14201046108a0c_viewID=detail_view&itemID=9a5070ff7fc22210VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD&pressReleaseYearSelect=2009

Apparently all this wasted money of education is working to some degree or another. Heres another study about how more traffic cameras can save 10,000 lives a year in the US alone. Its also based in the REAL real world.

http://crime.about.com/od/prevent/a/speed_camera.htm

I am really sorry but it seems that you have no idea what your talking about with statements like the ones you made above. I do agree with you on the purpose of law enforcement but it seems that increasing the number of police on the road is not the only way to keep bad drivers off the road. I dont like zero tolerance policies of anykind because in every situation there are grey areas. I just want our standards to be more strict.

I doubt if anyone would suggest that lowering speed limits is a mechanism for making drivers "feel less safe".

I agree that it only makes sense to try out the Monderman techniques very slowly, if at all. I believe it would be downright ignorant to extrapolate from one or two tiny trials "reported" by the cheerleading from a few proponents of the technique.

We were not talking about speed limits, which are almost totally ineffective at slowing down drivers. Recently, traffic engineers are looking much more at the behavior and psychology of drivers in order to get them to perform better. One example is that drivers tend to slow down considerably if the side of the road feels "uneven" to them. Thus, they will slow down if there are parked cars on the streetside, or irregularly spaced pedestrian islands--even though they still have plenty of actual space to drive more quickly.

The links I listed discuss this. But a better introduction is the book "Traffic" by Tom Vanderbilt. I think you'd enjoy it, if you haven't looked at it yet.

Personally I don't think slowing drivers down is the way to go. I've been a driver and I hate it when the traffic moves slowly and when I have to weave my way through traffic slowing devices etc. etc. It makes me irritable. And the last thing cyclists need are irritable drivers.

IF the government is going to look at slowing traffic down on one street, they need to make sure there is another option for drivers to move briskly.

In my ideal city plan there would be a dual carriage way (or wider) ring road all around the edge of the city with wide shoulders so that both cars and cyclists could cruise along together ... and the cars could do 100 km/h out there. There would also be at least one main North/South road, and one main East/West road ... the larger the city is the more of these there would be. These would also be at least dual carriage ways or wider with wide shoulders so that both cars and bicycles could be on the road together without getting in each other's way. The speed limit on these roads might be 80 km/h.

I like the grid system so the Northwest subdivision would be crossed with a main North/South road and a main East/West road. These would still be dual carriage way, and would have shoulders for cyclists, but the speed limit might be lower ... 60 or 70 km/h. The same would be true for each of the other subdivisions.

And then there would be the smaller residential or industrial roads within the subdivisions. These could have some traffic slowing devices if necessary, but should still mainly be wide enough for both cars and bicycles to travel alongside together. I saw a particular traffic slowing device I liked in ... England, I'm thinking. The motorized vehicle opening was just wide enough for one vehicle to pass through at a time so if there were another one going the other way it had to give way. But there was another opening about the width of a sidewalk for cyclists. So a car and a bicycle could both co-exist quite happily together.

This sort of set up would allow motorists to get from point A to point B quite quickly with fast roads to get them from one subdivision to another. They may have to slow down at the beginning of the journey and at the end, but the middle of the trip could be quite fast. And it would allow bicycles to be out there with the motorized vehicle, but out of their way.


(I could draw a diagram of the plan I'm thinking of if what I've said is not clear. :D)

The list in post #1 pretty much covers it for me. Except for the rumble strips they want to put into the road on those wide sections. It may be a safety thing for the vehicles, but it looks like (I road next to one for about 15 miles my last "major" ride) it could take down a rider rather quickly (and tear up the wheel).

As for narrower roads, I find those typically to be the most dangerous, especially given the condition that they typically get into. The latest incident involved me hitting a crack in the road and being skipped out right in front of a truck that was behind me. I got the horn honk, of course, but the idea of suddenly finding myself 2 ft in front of a truck wasn't pleasant.

The list in post #1 pretty much covers it for me. Except for the rumble strips they want to put into the road on those wide sections. It may be a safety thing for the vehicles, but it looks like (I road next to one for about 15 miles my last "major" ride) it could take down a rider rather quickly (and tear up the wheel).

As for narrower roads, I find those typically to be the most dangerous, especially given the condition that they typically get into. The latest incident involved me hitting a crack in the road and being skipped out right in front of a truck that was behind me. I got the horn honk, of course, but the idea of suddenly finding myself 2 ft in front of a truck wasn't pleasant.

That's the thing ... when they narrow the roads, it forces cyclists to be right in there with the motorized vehicles sharing, or attempting to share, the same space. From my experience that just doesn't work. The motorists become either overly cautious because the cyclists terrify them, or the motorists become angry. And as a cyclist, I'm edgy if I've got to share the same little bit of road with a motorized vehicle. I can't relax and enjoy my ride.

But if the road I'm riding on is wide enough for the semi (or anything smaller) and me to both do our thing at the same time without getting in each other's way, I can relax and enjoy my ride, and the motorist can relax and carry on with what he/she is doing.


About those rumble strips. I don't mind the ones that go right along the white lines - they are only about 6 inches wide and don't get in the way of either the driver or the cyclist. The ones I hate are the ones that go right down the middle of the shoulder making the shoulder almost impossible to ride on.

But I've seen a few places where those rumble strips have been filled in. Not only are they annoying to cyclists, but they cause damage to roads in places where there is a lot of freezing and thawing.

About those rumble strips. I don't mind the ones that go right along the white lines - they are only about 6 inches wide and don't get in the way of either the driver or the cyclist. The ones I hate are the ones that go right down the middle of the shoulder making the shoulder almost impossible to ride on.

But I've seen a few places where those rumble strips have been filled in. Not only are they annoying to cyclists, but they cause damage to roads in places where there is a lot of freezing and thawing.

Rumble strips on the fog line. Have you ever had to move suddenly from the shoulder to the lane--perhaps to avoid an animal (dead or alive) or other debris in the shoulder? Depending on the bike you're riding, this can be an unnerving experience or even dangerous.

Rumble strips on the fog line. Have you ever had to move suddenly from the shoulder to the lane--perhaps to avoid an animal (dead or alive) or other debris in the shoulder? Depending on the bike you're riding, this can be an unnerving experience or even dangerous.

I've ridden in areas where there are small, narrow rumble strips on the fog line ... like the road right near where I live now ... and it works well. It works a whole lot better than the wide killer rumble strips they run down the shoulders in Alberta. You want to talk about having to move to avoid something ... try doing it onto those.

1) Allow bicycles on all roads.

2) Install bicycle locks into all parking meters. No lock that has to be carried will ever provide enough theft protection, but a device built into a parking meter could and I'd be willing to pay the meter in order to use it.

3) Dispatch under cover police cyclists to catch motorists performing illegal activities which are unsafe to road users such as cyclists.

1)

3) Dispatch under cover police cyclists to catch motorists performing illegal activities which are unsafe to road users such as cyclists.

This is a cool idea but ultimately the undercover cop on a bike would need to have a radio to another cop in a car to actually pull the guys over after they buzz the cyclist.

Well if we have the streets taken care of by someone’s wish and the locking or parking of bikes taken care of by someone’s wish and connecting cities taken care of by someone’s wish I only have two. It should be made legal to shove cyclists riding on the sidewalk and even in the wrong direction into traffic. Nighttime bike ninjas should be clothes lined as an example to others, but only if the other wishes come true in the first place. Relax it is only a wish.:lol:

But wouldn't the ninjas be the perfect warriors for shoving sidewalk/wrongway cyclists? :innocent:


This is a cool idea but ultimately the undercover cop on a bike would need to have a radio to another cop in a car to actually pull the guys over after they buzz the cyclist.

Red light cameras don't. They should just wear a helmet cam and mail out tickets to the offending license plates at the end of the day.

Even if they have to radio I don't see the problem because I gather that's the way most traffic traps work anyway (one cop to detect offenders and another to handle them).

But wouldn't the ninjas be the perfect warriors for shoving sidewalk/wrongway cyclists? :innocent:



Red light cameras don't. They should just wear a helmet cam and mail out tickets to the offending license plates at the end of the day.

Even if they have to radio I don't see the problem because I gather that's the way most traffic traps work anyway (one cop to detect offenders and another to handle them).

Oh I agree with you that it is certainly possible. I was just thinking about the idea of a cop on a bicycle trying to pull over a car that is probably speeding past him! Maybe he could have a little flashy light on his helmet? :)

the cops in Sacramento did somethign similiar with a very busy pedestrian crossing in downtown. Right when a flood of cars start coming down the busy road the plain clothes officer would try to cross the street. In CA its illegal to enter a cross walk if there is a ped anywhere on it. A cop about 20 feet down the road would snag anyone who did not yeild. They tried to get out of the tickets by saying it was entrapment but I thought it was a pretty cool idea.

Oh I agree with you that it is certainly possible. I was just thinking about the idea of a cop on a bicycle trying to pull over a car that is probably speeding past him! Maybe he could have a little flashy light on his helmet? :)

the cops in Sacramento did somethign similiar with a very busy pedestrian crossing in downtown. Right when a flood of cars start coming down the busy road the plain clothes officer would try to cross the street. In CA its illegal to enter a cross walk if there is a ped anywhere on it. A cop about 20 feet down the road would snag anyone who did not yeild. They tried to get out of the tickets by saying it was entrapment but I thought it was a pretty cool idea.

If it were entrapment wouldn't that mean the motorist was trying to hit the pedestrian in the crosswalk? :lol:

Also, I'm not sure if a little flashy light would really distinguish a cop from other cyclists. :) What do regular cycle mounted cops use? In any case I agree that a single cop on a bike would not find much success trying to pull over cars from behind.

Personally I don't think slowing drivers down is the way to go. I've been a driver and I hate it when the traffic moves slowly and when I have to weave my way through traffic slowing devices etc. etc. It makes me irritable. And the last thing cyclists need are irritable drivers.

IF the government is going to look at slowing traffic down on one street, they need to make sure there is another option for drivers to move briskly.

In my ideal city plan there would be a dual carriage way (or wider) ring road all around the edge of the city with wide shoulders so that both cars and cyclists could cruise along together ... and the cars could do 100 km/h out there. There would also be at least one main North/South road, and one main East/West road ... the larger the city is the more of these there would be. These would also be at least dual carriage ways or wider with wide shoulders so that both cars and bicycles could be on the road together without getting in each other's way. The speed limit on these roads might be 80 km/h.

I like the grid system so the Northwest subdivision would be crossed with a main North/South road and a main East/West road. These would still be dual carriage way, and would have shoulders for cyclists, but the speed limit might be lower ... 60 or 70 km/h. The same would be true for each of the other subdivisions.

And then there would be the smaller residential or industrial roads within the subdivisions. These could have some traffic slowing devices if necessary, but should still mainly be wide enough for both cars and bicycles to travel alongside together. I saw a particular traffic slowing device I liked in ... England, I'm thinking. The motorized vehicle opening was just wide enough for one vehicle to pass through at a time so if there were another one going the other way it had to give way. But there was another opening about the width of a sidewalk for cyclists. So a car and a bicycle could both co-exist quite happily together.

This sort of set up would allow motorists to get from point A to point B quite quickly with fast roads to get them from one subdivision to another. They may have to slow down at the beginning of the journey and at the end, but the middle of the trip could be quite fast. And it would allow bicycles to be out there with the motorized vehicle, but out of their way.


(I could draw a diagram of the plan I'm thinking of if what I've said is not clear. :D)

After reading what you write here, I think we are basically in agreement.

What I was suggesting is that in areas where people live and attempt to walk, it is both dangerous and adding a much lower quality of life if cars are allowed to travel at speed. My thought is that, as residents of the city, we ought not to be subservient to car drivers. Their inconvenience doesn't trump our inconvenience.

I've been reading about a city layout suggested by JH Crawford in Carfree Cities, where he suggests that automobile traffic should be confined to areas away from where people live. However... oddly... his layout for cars sounds similar to what you are talking about... More traffic and speed on the perimeter.

Where he differs is in having the inner portion of the city is comprised of smaller "rings" in a topology of six to 8 units with high speed rail moving between. Each ring would consist of housing where cars were not allowed and even bicycles could not travel at speed. The idea of the six unit topology is to have a city where you could bike to any end of the city (even a city of 1,000,000) within 1 hour. Train travel would be much less. And cars wouldn't be necessary.

One thing I might agree with you on is the notion that slowing cars down "is not the way to go." It's very difficult to get a car -- designed to travel at 120kmh -- to slow down to less than 40kmh. It's the same reason why few serious cyclists like to travel on sidewalks... on sidewalks, you really need to travel at walking speed to be safe.

However, all these considerations seem unimportant. Crawford's ideal city doesn't exist and we having real existing conditions where cars are travelling through residential and light commercial areas at a fairly high rate of speed. This scenario doesn't work very well if you want to have both cyclists on the road and pedestrians on sidewalks.

If it were entrapment wouldn't that mean the motorist was trying to hit the pedestrian in the crosswalk? :lol:

Also, I'm not sure if a little flashy light would really distinguish a cop from other cyclists. :) What do regular cycle mounted cops use? In any case I agree that a single cop on a bike would not find much success trying to pull over cars from behind.

I have seen more than one cycle cop writing tickets for traffic violations. It easy to catch up to them in heavy traffic.:innocent: I have seen some with blue and red alternating strobes mounted on their bikes, I believe I heard one with a siren too in Iowa City.:D The cop was in hot pursuit of something and was rolling down a long hill.

Aaron:)

I have seen more than one cycle cop writing tickets for traffic violations. It easy to catch up to them in heavy traffic.:innocent: I have seen some with blue and red alternating strobes mounted on their bikes, I believe I heard one with a siren too in Iowa City.:D The cop was in hot pursuit of something and was rolling down a long hill.


Sweet :thumb:

Maybe he could have a little flashy light on his helmet? :)

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff8/richie-brian/Helmet.jpg

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Police-Helmet-Flashing-Blue-Light/dp/B000KE9AUM

OK, now my three, a lot like what's already been posted:

1. Mass transit that's bike-accessible; imagine, a train that took your bike aboard that rolled you from Indianapolis to Moab! A lot more focus on mass-transit travel goes hand-in-hand with this.

2. STRONG education for drivers; eliminate the sense of entitlement that seems to now seep up out of the upholstery.

3. Cyclists have preferential treatment on the road, not car drivers.

I agree about the education for the drivers, but what about education for cyclists? Most cyclist have far less formal education concerning rules of the road than automobiles. Given their relative scarcity in number I have seen many more cyclists run lights and stop signs, ride on the wrong side of the road, cut across lanes etc. than I have ever seen cars. If we are to have more cyclists sharing the roads than it is only logical that they be good cyclists. In a cyclists utopia I think a cyclist should have at least as much education as drivers as we're the ones who will die in an accident.

I agree about the education for the drivers, but what about education for cyclists? Most cyclist have far less formal education concerning rules of the road than automobiles. Given their relative scarcity in number I have seen many more cyclists run lights and stop signs, ride on the wrong side of the road, cut across lanes etc. than I have ever seen cars. If we are to have more cyclists sharing the roads than it is only logical that they be good cyclists. In a cyclists utopia I think a cyclist should have at least as much education as drivers as we're the ones who will die in an accident.

I have no problem with education for cyclists. Years ago it was taught at the grade school level. But because we have become a nation of scared people we don't dare teach our children anything useful that might lead them to taste freedom.

Aaron:)

I have no problem with education for cyclists. Years ago it was taught at the grade school level. But because we have become a nation of scared people we don't dare teach our children anything useful that might lead them to taste freedom.

Aaron:)

Yes ... it was in Grade Four for me. I still have the "textbook".