Pacific Northwest - To the four idiots on the Sammamish River Trail Friday evening

Maybe you are reading this, maybe you are not. But to the four idiots who were pacelining on the Sammamish River Trail friday evening around 5:30PM heading south just past Red Hook - what the hell were you guys thinking?

It was a friday evening, the sun was out and the temperature was over 60 degrees - did you not think that the trail would be crowded with walkers, runners, bladers, baby joggers and kids on bikes?

I could not catch the name/logos on your matching team kit you were blasting down the trail so fast. With that tailwind behind you, I would guess you were going somewhere between 25-30MPH. I only got a quick glimpse of you as you came around the corner and cut between a jogger and the family on bicycles at full throttle.

If you want to practice your pacelining, that's fine, but head out into the Snohomish River Valley to do it on a friday night. Your giving the rest of us a bad name.

Sorry for the rant. Meant to post it over the weekend, but I was still thinking about it today and figured better late than never.

+1 I agree MUP are not a place to train or practice paceline riding. We have almost been whacked a few times on the Foothills trail

I am not guilty of this particular offense but I got yelled at the other day (3/19) on the Burke Gilman Trail just outside of University Village for passing a child too fast. I was going 14.4 mph but for the conditions it was too fast. Given my experience and age, I really should have known better. So, to the guy who yelled, "Dude, slow down!" as he came the other way, and to the others on the trail, I apologize. For the rest of the ride, I slowed down to around 8 mph in similar situations.

Now that the weather is getting better it almost feels like the BGT is a dangerous place to ride.

Was it these guys (http://jetcityvelo.com/)?

More than once I've ended up shoulder to shoulder with their paceline as they insist on passing when there's oncoming traffic.

The only other teams I've seen on the SRT/BGT are Recycled Cycles (blue/gold) and Starbucks (green/white), but I've never had an issue with either of them.
Other local teams which might be on the trail:
- Cucina Fresca (black & white w/red trim)
- Woodinville Bicycle (red & white w/ black trim)
- Amgen (white/blue)
- Hagens Berman (white & blue w/ black & yellow trim)
Although, I haven't actually spotted any of those teams on the trails before; only out on the roads.

Was it these guys (http://jetcityvelo.com/)?

More than once I've ended up shoulder to shoulder with their paceline as they insist on passing when there's oncoming traffic.


Pretty high probability, Clifton. I could not read the names on the jerseys, but the colors are right.

not doing any great public service on behalf of their sponsors. I've ridden around some wearing those jerseys, and they don't seem to bring much common sense along

I have most of the local teams' colors memorized and I contact the teams when I see them creating problems for me or other folks. However, I've found that the teams that ride like a**holes also respond like a**holes when you try to contact them.

Therefore, I look up their sponsors and contact the ones that are cycling related. I make sure I get in touch with the manager or owner (not just whoever answers the phone). I then describe the incident I witnessed, and the time, and ask the sponsor to contact the team on my behalf. I also tell the sponsors that I am happy to contact the police next, and I am.

I try to avoid busy MUP's, especially on weekends, but I have to take some on my daily commute, and I have to cross the I90 trail frequently. I think any team that does pacelines on the I90 trail is asking for trouble.

I would like to ask any of you also bothered by team behavior on the MUP's to start calling sponsors as well.

I would like to ask any of you also bothered by team behavior on the MUP's to start calling sponsors as well.

This is precisely why if I'm having a bad week at work, I make sure to wear my Seattle Randonneurs jersey on my commute. It forces me to be nice, so I don't make a bad name for the club.
If I'm having a bad week and I wear my Cinzano jersey, may the gods have mercy on whomever pisses me off.

I have most of the local teams' colors memorized and I contact the teams when I see them creating problems for me or other folks. However, I've found that the teams that ride like a**holes also respond like a**holes when you try to contact them.

Therefore, I look up their sponsors and contact the ones that are cycling related. I make sure I get in touch with the manager or owner (not just whoever answers the phone). I then describe the incident I witnessed, and the time, and ask the sponsor to contact the team on my behalf. I also tell the sponsors that I am happy to contact the police next, and I am.

I try to avoid busy MUP's, especially on weekends, but I have to take some on my daily commute, and I have to cross the I90 trail frequently. I think any team that does pacelines on the I90 trail is asking for trouble.

I would like to ask any of you also bothered by team behavior on the MUP's to start calling sponsors as well.

Feel free to contact sponsors, but please, DO call and complain to the team/team site as well. I would want to hear complaints to straighten up our teammates.

Back in the old days when I lived there the trails were less crowded, but you still wouldn't ride paceline on either the BG or SRT. You left that for West Valley Road or 507 and maybe Lake Wash Blvd in the city. Here in NYC you'd be laughed off the road if you tried that on the West Side Bikeway, cause only poseurs would try. Central Park is OK when it isn't crowded as you have 3 lanes, no cars and it is one way only.

I'll be in Seattle with bike in May and I'm going to ride all my old routes and BG and SRT will certainly be part of it, so I'll see.

The best paceline roads around here now (IMO) are Snoqualmie Valley Rd (Eastside), Pioneer Hwy (North/Skagit Valley), SR 410 and Auburn-Black Diamond Rd (South). Don't know much of the westside and Downtown, unfortunately.

Maybe they were heading down to Marymoor to practice pacelining in the velodrome. If I see them again I will be sure to make the call. Whoever it was, it was dangerous and really gives all cyclists a bad name.

Your giving the rest of us a bad name.Here we go again, whine, whine, whine "Your giving the rest of us a bad name." BS .

Guess what guys, it is likely that the trail (MUP) was built with 80-85% of the funding coming from the Federal Department of Transportation FDOT under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; ISTEA) or one of the many reauthorization acts. Whoever requested that funding for your MUP, had to certify that a primary use of the trail was for transportation purposes. Now that the MUP was funded and built mostly for transportation, you guys decide to whine about cyclist using the MUP at transportation speeds.

If you guys want a MUP exclusively for recreation with only walking/jogging speeds of under 10 mph, go get your local funding for that purpose, and stop lying to FDOT about the purpose of your MUP.

Here we go again, whine, whine, whine "Your giving the rest of us a bad name." BS .

Guess what guys, it is likely that the trail (MUP) was built with 80-85% of the funding coming from the Federal Department of Transportation FDOT under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; ISTEA) or one of the many reauthorization acts. Whoever requested that funding for your MUP, had to certify that a primary use of the trail was for transportation purposes. Now that the MUP was funded and built mostly for transportation, you guys decide to whine about cyclist using the MUP at transportation speeds.

If you guys want a MUP exclusively for recreation with only walking/jogging speeds of under 10 mph, go get your local funding for that purpose, and stop lying to FDOT about the purpose of your MUP.

I think you are seriously missing the point. Come over and ride some of our trails here with us -- there is a mix of walkers, dog-walkers, kids in strollers, slow cyclists, and medium-fast cyclists. Then, you add to that mix 10 or 12 guys in full racing kit doing a paceline, or a double paceline, barrelling through at 25 mph, and you have real danger on your hands. One of the trails I frequent -- it's actually a bikeway on the bridge over Lake Washington -- is wide enough for two cyclists to pass each other in the opposite direction, maybe 3 if everyone is going slow. But I've been faced with a racing team coming at me riding two abreast; I've had to actually slow down and stop and pull way over to the right when they approach to make sure I didn't get knocked over.

I don't think it matters who paid for the MUP. Riding at excess speed on a crowded MUP isn't safe.

CB HI : Glad you are in Hawaii. Hope you stay there

Now that the MUP was funded and built mostly for transportation, you guys decide to whine about cyclist using the MUP at transportation speeds.So, this transportation speed you speak of is a fixed number? That can not and will not be varied, even when traffic or other conditions warrant? How does it work in road traffic?

--J

If you guys want a MUP exclusively for recreation with only walking/jogging speeds of under 10 mph, go get your local funding for that purpose, and stop lying to FDOT about the purpose of your MUP.

Regardless of the funding source, the posted speed limit on the Sammamish River and Burke-Gilman Trails is 15mph.

Four guys practicing pacelining on a trail crowded with non-cyclicts is not transportation, it's selfish stupidity. I was cycling home from work (transportation) and had no problem riding in a safe manner at a reasonable speed given the conditions. Maybe in Hawaii they post signs on the trails that say "everyone must stay out of the way of the cyclists travelling at high speed", but unfortunately for us there are no such signs on any of the trails I have ridden in Washington State.

Also, I highly doubt these guys are pacelining. Granted, they are riding single file.... but I doubt they are pulling through each other. How would you rather have 4 friends riding their bikes? 2-3 abreast like the rest of the people on the BG?

That being said, Im would be willing to bet they were going too fast.... rag on them for that an not passing safey.... not for the fact they are riding single file.

Also, I highly doubt these guys are pacelining. Granted, they are riding single file.... but I doubt they are pulling through each other.

Not specifically referring to the 4 guys in the OP, but just to the folks I have seen:

- What do you call a group of riders who are riding with 12 to 24 inches between them, riding at 20 to 25 mph, where the leaders keep pulling out to the side and rotating to the back of the group?

I call that pacelining, but happy to stand corrected.

Equally bad is a large team is just transiting somewhere together on a MUP, so they are riding two abreast chatting, still going 20-ish, and so wrapped up in their conversation that they don't bother watching out for pedestrians, kids, other cyclists, etc. They may not be 'pacelining,' but are still a hazard.

Also, I highly doubt these guys are pacelining. Granted, they are riding single file.... but I doubt they are pulling through each other. How would you rather have 4 friends riding their bikes? 2-3 abreast like the rest of the people on the BG?

That being said, Im would be willing to bet they were going too fast.... rag on them for that an not passing safey.... not for the fact they are riding single file.

If they would have been going 10MPH in single file I never would have been compelled to post. We are in agreement that pacelining is not relevant. That fact that they were hauling ass down a crowded trail is relevant. Seems like this thread has run it's course...

CB HI : Glad you are in Hawaii. Hope you stay thereAt least the Pearl Harbor Bike Path is an actual bike path for cyclist. And none of the money for it came from ISTEA. Activities on it other than police enforcement, maintenance and cycling are against the city law.

Hope you guys enjoy your 8 mph transportation corridors.

Oddly, a search of Washington papers does not turn up the numersous, serious collisions that have been caused by these horrible cyclist (maybe you could post all of them). I guess these cyclist are able to hold a line far better than those here give them credit.

Oddly, a search of Washington papers does not turn up the numersous, serious collisions that have been caused by these horrible cyclist (maybe you could post all of them). I guess these cyclist are able to hold a line far better than those here give them credit.

So awesome that you are now the expert on our local bike trails. I'll send the medical bills your way, too.

I've seen you all over the islands, the locals are cool for the most part, your type MMMmnot so much.

If they would have been going 10MPH in single file I never would have been compelled to post. We are in agreement that pacelining is not relevant. That fact that they were hauling ass down a crowded trail is relevant. Seems like this thread has run it's course...

Agreed. its the speed and the unsafe passing that I do not tolerate.

As for 20-25 mph AND rotating a real paceline.... ive never seen that on the trail. maybe it happens, but thats just silly.

AND, if you admit, the original 4 you are complaining about were not doing this, why even mention the pacelining part, and just yell at them to slow the hell down, and quit passing like Aholes.

Ill admit, I have found myself at the tail end of our team using the MUP to get out somewhere where we can do some real riding. There have been times they are going way too fast for the trail (20mph) with an occasional other person on the trail. I am going to yell at them and tell them keep the speed to 15. But I have never been with, or seen groups rotating pacelines... but I stay the hell away from MUPs....

Well to me, four guys in matching team kit with about a foot between bikes is a paceline. But that's just me, I'm a stupid bike commuter, what do I know. I would have yelled but they were by me too fast...

So awesome that you are now the expert on our local bike trails. I'll send the medical bills your way, too.Feel free to post up the last set of medical bills these cyclist cost you. Still waiting for all those news articles about the collisions.

I doubt that the average 10 year old using this trail has any idea where the funds came from for it. As far as they're concerned it's just an extension of the PARK that's at one of the entrance points onto the trail (along with the many picnic tables.)

MUP's by definition (Multiple Use) serve several purposes. Commuters in the am and generally families with their kids in the afternoon. People using the MUP need to realize this and adjust their behaviour according to the conditions at any given time. If I were out there with my boys (as I have been many times) and a fast paceline whizzed by narrowly missing my kids, I'd be chasing them down.

Here we go again, whine, whine, whine "Your giving the rest of us a bad name." BS .

Guess what guys, it is likely that the trail (MUP) was built with 80-85% of the funding coming from the Federal Department of Transportation FDOT under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; ISTEA) or one of the many reauthorization acts. Whoever requested that funding for your MUP, had to certify that a primary use of the trail was for transportation purposes. Now that the MUP was funded and built mostly for transportation, you guys decide to whine about cyclist using the MUP at transportation speeds.

If you guys want a MUP exclusively for recreation with only walking/jogging speeds of under 10 mph, go get your local funding for that purpose, and stop lying to FDOT about the purpose of your MUP.


No, not built with that money. The trail was there when I lived in Seattle in the 80's. It was built with local money as a recreational trail. Get your facts straight. I guess you aren't old enough to know. "Likely" doesn't win in court.

No, not built with that money. The trail was there when I lived in Seattle in the 80's. It was built with local money as a recreational trail. Get your facts straight. I guess you aren't old enough to know. "Likely" doesn't win in court.And since there was no such thing as a MUP in the early 80's with construction of the path, it was built as a BIKE PATH and has since been taken over by all the other groups. The extension was done in 1993 to Burke-Gilman and certainly included ISTEA funds, even though the local politicians tried to take full credit for funding it.

Feel free to post your court documents proving the funding source from 1980 to date, including all extensions repairs and improvements.

CB HI,

I don't understand your point. I don't understand how the source of funding gives the right for cyclists to use the trail in a way that threatens the safety of other users. Can you clarify your point?

I know that you think the absence of a newspaper article detailing actual injuries here makes you think we are making everything up, but imagine for a second that we're telling the truth. How does the funding source make that OK?

Thanks --

I've seen two of those racer dorks crash after a kid on bike and a walker pulled in front of them. They get up all pissed off but, fortunately, they ended up with the scabs.

Point 1: anytime a post/thread starts with
"Your giving the rest of us a bad name."
it is BS. First you presume they are doing something wrong. And even wrong way cyclist who are breaking the law, do not give all cyclist a bad name. That is no more true than a couple of taggers giving all artist a bad name.

Point 2: Most of the current bike paths in existence today were sold as alternate transportation that would make commuting safe, quick and convenient for the cyclist; remove one more car from the road, easing traffic congestion, reducing global warming, cleaning the air, etc. On that basis, many transportation, utility and recreational cyclist that wanted a bike path separate from the road that they can still travel up to 30 mph on, supported both the construction and transportational funding for the bike path over other cycling projects. But none of that is true if the bike path is later turned into a MUP with an effective speed limit as deemed by you guys and the walkers as under 10 mph. So those cyclist were lied to. Had the truth been known, many of those cyclist would have pushed for the transportational funding to be spend on useful transportation projects like more street sweepers, wider outside lanes, etc. Considering the claimed intended use of the bike path, it is the subsequent walkers, dog people and riders that cannot hold a line that have created the subsequent danger on the bike path (now called a MUP). Thankfully, the guys you call racer dorks are skilled enough to avoid a real collision, often putting themselves off the bike path to save the wreck less.

So don’t blame those cyclist if they want to use the bike path (now called a MUP) in the manner they were promised.

Point 3: There is NO real indication that the faster cyclist are actually causing injuries and deaths. They tend to hold a very good line and pass safely, even if it seems a little unnerving to those less experience folks trying to take over the bike path. They are not like large cars and trucks that have a hard time telling if the are so close that they will hit someone (cyclist can tell exactly how close they are passing).Yeah, one guy says he saw a couple of guys give themselves some road rash. So what, I have seen a couple a slow riding, baggy pants MUP riders tip over and hurt themselves. Neither hurt any other bike path users.

Point 4: Most people that want to use MUPs rather than a fast transportational, utility, recreational bike path, rarely travel more than 5 miles. I am all in favor of using recreational and parks funding to build these 5 mile MUP loops or out & backs. That is an appropriate funding source for the MUPs, but transportational funding is not appropriate.

Point 5: If you are really interested in better safety on what are now existing MUPs, teach ALL users to stay in the right lane of the MUP (former bike path) and use the center for passing. It works really well and gives greater passing clearance regardless of relative speeds. But many users refuse to work together in such an effort.

Point 6: We are all cyclist and the thing that really hurts cycling is this “us vs them” BS. See stupid post above.

I don't know about all the trails around here, but the Great Miami Bike Trail has posted that bike shall yield to all other pedestrians. But both times I've been on it, we saw 5-6 others bikes, so we were fine.

Point 1: anytime a post/thread starts with
"Your giving the rest of us a bad name."
it is BS. First you presume they are doing something wrong. And even wrong way cyclist who are breaking the law, do not give all cyclist a bad name. That is no more true than a couple of taggers giving all artist a bad name.

Point 2: Most of the current bike paths in existence today were sold as alternate transportation that would make commuting safe, quick and convenient for the cyclist; remove one more car from the road, easing traffic congestion, reducing global warming, cleaning the air, etc. On that basis, many transportation, utility and recreational cyclist that wanted a bike path separate from the road that they can still travel up to 30 mph on, supported both the construction and transportational funding for the bike path over other cycling projects. But none of that is true if the bike path is later turned into a MUP with an effective speed limit as deemed by you guys and the walkers as under 10 mph. So those cyclist were lied to. Had the truth been known, many of those cyclist would have pushed for the transportational funding to be spend on useful transportation projects like more street sweepers, wider outside lanes, etc. Considering the claimed intended use of the bike path, it is the subsequent walkers, dog people and riders that cannot hold a line that have created the subsequent danger on the bike path (now called a MUP). Thankfully, the guys you call racer dorks are skilled enough to avoid a real collision, often putting themselves off the bike path to save the wreck less.

So don’t blame those cyclist if they want to use the bike path (now called a MUP) in the manner they were promised.

Point 3: There is NO real indication that the faster cyclist are actually causing injuries and deaths. They tend to hold a very good line and pass safely, even if it seems a little unnerving to those less experience folks trying to take over the bike path. They are not like large cars and trucks that have a hard time telling if the are so close that they will hit someone (cyclist can tell exactly how close they are passing).Yeah, one guy says he saw a couple of guys give themselves some road rash. So what, I have seen a couple a slow riding, baggy pants MUP riders tip over and hurt themselves. Neither hurt any other bike path users.

Point 4: Most people that want to use MUPs rather than a fast transportational, utility, recreational bike path, rarely travel more than 5 miles. I am all in favor of using recreational and parks funding to build these 5 mile MUP loops or out & backs. That is an appropriate funding source for the MUPs, but transportational funding is not appropriate.

Point 5: If you are really interested in better safety on what are now existing MUPs, teach ALL users to stay in the right lane of the MUP (former bike path) and use the center for passing. It works really well and gives greater passing clearance regardless of relative speeds. But many users refuse to work together in such an effort.

Point 6: We are all cyclist and the thing that really hurts cycling is this “us vs them” BS. See stupid post above.

Please don't ever visit here since we don't need one more know it all on the MUP's here. I know the foothills trail here in Pierce county has a posted speed limit of 15 mph and with bikers skaters and even fishermen walking to the river thats plenty fast. As posted above a 10 year old kid riding his bike from school on the path doesn't have the foggiest idea where the money to build that path came from and he shouldn't all he knows is he doesn't have to dodge cars. Thats as it should be. You belabor your pointless debate so please just stay where you are and we will all be better off

Here we go again, whine, whine, whine "Your giving the rest of us a bad name." BS .

Guess what guys, it is likely that the trail (MUP) was built with 80-85% of the funding coming from the Federal Department of Transportation FDOT under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; ISTEA) or one of the many reauthorization acts. Whoever requested that funding for your MUP, had to certify that a primary use of the trail was for transportation purposes. Now that the MUP was funded and built mostly for transportation, you guys decide to whine about cyclist using the MUP at transportation speeds.

If you guys want a MUP exclusively for recreation with only walking/jogging speeds of under 10 mph, go get your local funding for that purpose, and stop lying to FDOT about the purpose of your MUP.

Every citizen has a constitutional right to travel. The roads and highways are public highways, built for the use of the people as a whole. All persons have an equal right to use the public roads and highways for the purposes of travel by proper means, and with due regard for the corresponding rights of other legitimate users. You may not camp on the highway – that is not travel, and it prevents others from traveling. You may not drive an overweight truck, or use a tractor with steel tires or cleats – because that damages the highways for others. You may not drive a motor vehicle without a license, or drive a vehicle while drunk or otherwise impaired, because that endangers others. You may not race on the highways (or bike paths) if by doing so you endanger other legitimate users or interfere with their legitimate use of the roadways. In short, if you treat other users as they should treat you, you have exactly the same rights as they have. (Forester, Effective Cycling, 6th Ed., (1994), pp. 248-249; cited to American Jurisprudence.)

Well to me, four guys in matching team kit with about a foot between bikes is a paceline. But that's just me, I'm a stupid bike commuter, what do I know. I would have yelled but they were by me too fast...


So a paceline is determined by number of people as well as clothing being worn?

Ive seen 3 commuters riding single file, drafting off each other. Are they pacelining to work?

How do you suggest a group of individuals ride to a common destination, spaced out at 23 yard intervals?

Again, and you said it yourself, the problem is not that 4 individuals are riding closely single file (actually, I wish more people rode single file). The problem is with their SPEED.

Ive seen 3 commuters riding single file, drafting off each other. Are they pacelining to work?

They might be. Did they rotate pulls up front?
I see the same 3 guys every morning on my commute, in a tight draft line.

I've exchanged pulls with fellow commuters on the Sam. River Trail heading from Woodinville to Redmond on a few days when the headwind was attrocious. We may not have been wearing matching kit, or going 20+ mph; but 4 dudes heading the same direction, taking turns up front, and riding within 12" of the next guy's wheel sounds like a paceline to me.

I wouldn't do that at 20+ mph on a 70 degree sunny day at 3:30pm when the trail is full of kids on big wheels, stroller joggers and rollerbladers with their dogs. But when it's cold, raining and windy, and there are only 2 or 3 other people on the trail for 5 miles, it's not dangerous.

First off let me say I avoid MUPs like the plague (when possible). For instance coming into Seattle I take 180th/Perkins/5th Ave (the hilly route) down to the U-dist, skipping most of the BGT. I hate it that much (and like to train that much too).

Anyway, the last time I rode in a big group on the BGT it was with about 100 other people, all wearing matching jerseys.

But it wasn't a racing team so I guess it was OK right?

Ask the walkers, joggers, and strollers if it was a "paceline" or "peloton" of "racers" coming down the path at them or not? My guess is they would say yes. Do you think they see a difference between a group of folks doing 22 mph and folks doing 18? What about 16 mph?

(That big group on the BGT was the Seattle Intl Randonneurs, not a race team; but my question to you is what's the real difference?)

@ CB HI... sorry man, you are completely wrong about the 'giving the rest of us bad names' statements you made. Actually it does give the rest of us a bad name. The only reason you dont see it is because you are a cyclist. Ive seen plenty of cyclists riding about 10 to 15 mph right in the middle of a lane in a 30 mph zone and they wont pull over to the side to let cars pass because they have that 'grand' idea that vehicles and bicycles have equal rights to the roads. Meanwhile you have people yelling out the windows at him, she or it and there begins, or adds, to the hatred of cyclists. A little while ago some turd on the radio said that we (him and his listening audience) need to run down cyclists. Hes not the only one. There have been congressman in the US (Mainland) that say the same thing and want to get rid of cycling on public roads all together.

When I ride, I ride considerately. If I have enough room on the right... that is where I ride. I dont block cars or prevent them from passing because any idiot knows whos going to win that battle. When I ride trails I ride with some speed but when coming into a crowded area (REGARDLESS OF WHO IS IN THE RIGHT AND WHAT THE SPEED LIMIT IS) I slow down. If you were to hit a child and regardless of who was in the right... you will go to court and I dont think you have to be a rocket scientist to find out who the judge will have sympathy for, some scabbed up cyclist or some injured child.

But I do understand one point you made about rarely hearing of cyclists running into people on the trails. It really doesnt happen that often and from what I actually see on some trails it most likely will be the fault of the peds. Ive seen NUUUUUUUUUMEROUS mothers with trams, people walking with other people or their dogs taking up the whole trail and not giving a crap about everyone else. These are the main people who cause the accidents. However, in the right or wrong, if you are a part of an accident involving these idiots and you were riding fast... its still going to be your fault. Its the ***** you have to put up with.

When I go out to paceline, or even solo rides (fitness) I never ride on a trail because I dont want to get messed up or mess up my bike because of some idiot who doesnt know which side of the trail to walk on.

Point 2: Most of the current bike paths in existence today were sold as alternate transportation that would make commuting safe, quick and convenient for the cyclist; remove one more car from the road, easing traffic congestion, reducing global warming, cleaning the air, etc. On that basis, many transportation, utility and recreational cyclist that wanted a bike path separate from the road that they can still travel up to 30 mph on, supported both the construction and transportational funding for the bike path over other cycling projects. But none of that is true if the bike path is later turned into a MUP with an effective speed limit as deemed by you guys and the walkers as under 10 mph. So those cyclist were lied to. Had the truth been known, many of those cyclist would have pushed for the transportational funding to be spend on useful transportation projects like more street sweepers, wider outside lanes, etc. Considering the claimed intended use of the bike path, it is the subsequent walkers, dog people and riders that cannot hold a line that have created the subsequent danger on the bike path (now called a MUP). Thankfully, the guys you call racer dorks are skilled enough to avoid a real collision, often putting themselves off the bike path to save the wreck less.

So under your view of the world, if the four guys travelling high speed weren't commuting, if they were merely recreating, then you would agree they would be equally wrong in using the trail as someone traveling at under 10 MPH?

So under your view of the world, if the four guys travelling high speed weren't commuting, if they were merely recreating, then you would agree they would be equally wrong in using the trail as someone traveling at under 10 MPH?That is a wrong interpretation of my position. My opposition is to those who lied about the intended use of the bike paths and those who have tried to take over the bike paths and now whine about the cyclist who still use the bike path under the original intended use.

If it is legal to walk, jog, rollerblade, exercise dogs or recreational cycle on the bike path (now called a MUP), then I am OK with that as long as they stay in the right lane of the bike path except when passing. And as long as they do not whine or try to ban the legal cyclist safely traveling at 12 to 30 mph on the bike path. Do these same walking people try to ban motorist from roads without sidewalks when the motorist legally travel at 30 mph - NO. So why the difference with the bike path (now called a MUP).

The cyclist were infringe upon as soon as those 15 mph limit signs went up to quite the whiners down, especially when no risk assessment was done prior to putting the signs up .

Some of your misunderstanding was likely from my reference to
At least the Pearl Harbor Bike Path is an actual bike path for cyclist. And none of the money for it came from ISTEA. Activities on it other than police enforcement, maintenance and cycling are against the city law.The Pearl Harbor Bike Path is unusual as it:
1. Was built by Honolulu City with an easement agreement from the US Navy who owns the property. Used as a railroad corridor during WWII to transport munitions and fuel pipeline routing. The fuel pipelines are still in active use.
2. The US Navy required certain restrictions in the easement agreement and the City codified those into law, effectively making any activity other than police enforcement, maintenance and cycling illegal. The City specifically spelled out the intended use was for transportational and recreational cycling.
3. Funding was before ISTEA (built 1972-73), but still included Federal funds from FDOT given to the City DOT as well as using bicycle registration fees collected by Honolulu City.
4. Politicians and others have tried to turn the bike path into a MUP, but have failed because of the above and a civil suit against the City and Feds, which ended in a settlement agreement which helped reinforce it as a bike path for cyclist. A written letter with threat of suit, to the State of Hawaii Attorney General ended in agreement with the state, reinforcing it as a bike path for cyclist.
5. Although walkers and joggers, do use the bike path, they do so at their own risk, as they are breaking the law. The legal cyclist will likely win any civil suit (especially with the prior settlement agreement and Mayor’s original letter stating it’s intended use).

For the most part, the walkers and joggers on the Pearl Harbor Bike Path understand about staying in the right lane and that cyclist will use the bike path at speed. The one exception is a woman who has had three strokes (walks with leg braces and a cane) on the bike path for her health and rehabilitation. She walks the wrong way because of the way she has to walk and lean on the cane (it is safer for her as she can stop and stand straight up closer to the path edge as a cyclist approaches). She definitely gets a pass from me, as she and I are the only two on the bike path when it is pouring down rain.

Homeless tend to be the primary problem on this bike path.

I will be riding sections of the SRT/BGT tomorrow, twice, as part of my 300k brevet.

I ride on it almost everyday. I don't, however, do speedwork on sunny weekend afternoons. If the Hawaiian troll can fit a 60-62 I will gladly loan him a bike and he can check it out for himself.

Homeless tend to be the primary problem on this bike path.

Are they in pacelines, or traveling one by one?

Here we go again, whine, whine, whine "Your giving the rest of us a bad name." BS .

Guess what guys, it is likely that the trail (MUP) was built with 80-85% of the funding coming from the Federal Department of Transportation FDOT under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; ISTEA) or one of the many reauthorization acts. Whoever requested that funding for your MUP, had to certify that a primary use of the trail was for transportation purposes. Now that the MUP was funded and built mostly for transportation, you guys decide to whine about cyclist using the MUP at transportation speeds.

If you guys want a MUP exclusively for recreation with only walking/jogging speeds of under 10 mph, go get your local funding for that purpose, and stop lying to FDOT about the purpose of your MUP.This argument is just so wrong in so many ways, I get it often from motorist that feel that bicyclist don't belong on the road that their (car and truck drivers) gas tax dollars paid for. The notion that we (every user on every public facility, road, park etc.) have to study the details of the exact funding sources, then use, or not use the public resource based on our own contribution is total and utter nonsense, one invented and used frequently on rightwing radio and TV.
I see two sets of rules covering these MUP trails, city and local rules of use and common sense and courtesy. It sounds like the racer - pacers were breaking both. I feel bad that they put so many people in a more dangerous position than necessary, we should all yell at them when we see them.

This argument is just so wrong in so many ways, I get it often from motorist that feel that bicyclist don't belong on the road that their (car and truck drivers) gas tax dollars paid for. The notion that we (every user on every public facility, road, park etc.) have to study the details of the exact funding sources, then use, or not use the public resource based on our own contribution is total and utter nonsense, one invented and used frequently on rightwing radio and TV.
I see two sets of rules covering these MUP trails, city and local rules of use and common sense and courtesy. It sounds like the racer - pacers were breaking both. I feel bad that they put so many people in a more dangerous position than necessary, we should all yell at them when we see them.Seems you are miss reading my post. I am not trying to ban anyone from using the bike path (now called a MUP). Which is exactly opposite the motorist example you provide above. You seem to be one of the guys in this thread trying to ban the people you call racer - pacers or you are trying to ban them from using the bike path as originally intended. What you guys are trying to do with the bike path, would be similar to cyclist trying to exclude motorist from the highway or to restrict them to 15 mph on a highway designed and built for a speed limit of 45 mph.

Since cyclist asked for and push to build a bike path they could commute and recreational ride on at speed, without motor traffic; then let walkers and really slow cyclist ask for and push to build the 5 mile MUP without fast cyclist that they really want.

But if the walkers and really slow cyclist want to still use the bike path, then they should keep things safe by staying in the right lane and walking/riding slow in a straight line (except when passing of course). Does that sound like the way cyclist are suppose the ride on the highway, so why not - same rules same rights on the bike path?:thumb:

Here the mups have a 15 mph limit, and all give the peds the right of way. Short of one lunging at you, you hit one and it's your fault.

Here the mups have a 15 mph limit, and all give the peds the right of way. Short of one lunging at you, you hit one and it's your fault.Exactly my point of how they took the good bike paths (now called MUPs) and ruined them for the original purposes.

And since you guys (not necessarily gitarzan) blamed and also worked to restrict the faster cyclist, good luck to you when the rest of the MUP users decide the next step is to ban together and also kick the slow cyclist off the MUP, soon to be called a WOP (walking only path).

wow, i didnt realize the burke gilman, and rail to trails conversions generally, could incite the HATRED like this!

HILARIOUS!~ :roflmao: to think that a 15mph limit RUINED multiple use paths!

RUINED, I say, RUINED!!!!!!!

despite the acerbic complaints from hawaii, the BG/Sammammish trail remains a bicycle highway and the best way to the north end of the lake.

let's face it lake city way is just not that much fun to ride, in the bus lane somtimes and sometimes not, and motorists doing 50mph. i don't mind it but is it relaxing like the BG? Heck no.