randya

1.5 miles of recreational or transportation bliss, and not a road crossing in sight:
https://www.portlandonline.com/parks/...propertyid=105

I'm sure there are other examples that are longer, eg. rails to trails projects etc. Anyway, what kind of dumbass doesn't check for cross traffic at an intersection? That's just common sense, not something you need to be 'trained' to do if your parents were responsible and you're over 5 years old...

joejack951

One does not need recreational facilities to learn how to love riding. I didn't grow up around any bike paths. I did my riding first on neighborhood streets (no sidewalks where I lived) and eventually moved on to more major roads so that I could ride to my friends' houses and to my summer job. More important than facilities in my opinion would be encouragement to use a bicycle as transportation at an early age (something I learned from my older sisters).

joejack951

Ok, so does everyone drive to the start then bike up and down this path in order to avoid any mixing with motorized traffic? I've used offroad cycling paths (rails to trails, mountain bike paths, and MUPs) before but they all either cross roads, require riding on a section of road to continue on the path, or require using roads to get to the start at some point. Paths which go uninteruptted by other roads crossings are quite nice when traffic is light but then again so are full sized roads.

As to who doesn't check for traffic at crossings, I've read and heard of plenty of collisions resulting from cyclists ignoring stop signs at intersections between paths and roads. It's a very common occurence with sidewalk cyclists too.

randya

Yes I do see some drive-to-the-start users, usually with small children; but most cyclists I know use the esplanade as a convenient, fast and motor vehicle-free bicycle highway. And it's decidedly faster and much better paved than the closest parallel surface street routes.

randya

Plenty of motorists and vehicular cyclists do the same things also, path users don't have a monopoly on poor practices at intersections.

bmike

Are you agreeing or arguing with me?

I do mingle with the cars and trucks and fossil fueled vehicles - and think it is one way to ride... (95% of my riding occurs on roads travelled by a mix of 'vehicles'.... but I also mix it up with the joggers and runners and walkers on the "path".

There are obvious differences between cars and trucks - where a mighty acceleration of lots of weight is available at the push of a pedal and a bicycle where accelration (and top speed) is directly related to the user... and one can (unscientifically) conclude that on a bike someone that accelerates and travels quickly is relatively experienced and comfortably handling his / her machine - where in a car the skills of a driver are not directly related to how fast and far they can travel - or the damage they can do when they lose control.

If we are to break everything down to a dictionary I'd prefer to use one pre-dating autos.

Language is relative and contextual - and I did stress in my post that I was refering to the differences between fossil fueled vehicles on the road and bikes. I do not think you can argue that there are significant differences - no matter what the definition is.

Helmet Head

We're lucky to have John Forester here. Do we really to waste time on trivial matters of semantics?

The National Highway Systems is a system of National Highways.
Not all highways are National Highways, or have highway in their names.

Brian Ratliff

Why?

Paul L.

Well, for one, I have found it very educating as to why Helmet Head is the way he is. Kind of makes me recollect that old Magnum PI episode where Magnum was trying to get Higgins to confess he was actually Robin. . Of course Helmet Head will take that as a compliment and if the shoe fits, wear it! I would like to be associated with those I follow as well I guess, you may call me Mini-ChipRandyaBekoSBhikes. (sorry if I forgot anyone, I will have to get a mini-middle name to put you in)

But I am not going to pose with the dog.

bmike

I'll second the "Why?".
Seems he's lucky we are here... in that he took quite a few BF posters words out of context and put them on his website, even going so far as to draw assumptions as to who those posters may be "in real life" - attributing words and actions to them without checking his facts - and if memory serves outing a few folks with their real names. Sloppy journalism at best and unprofessional.


If this is how he researches and writes about cycling, I am highly suspicious.

Helmet Head

This thread is moving so fast it's hard to keep up with, but this point is so important I'm sure it won't hurt to repeat it.

The idea that riding in the road in a segregated lane adjacent to traffic is not being "in traffic" is dangerous; dangerous in the same sense that Robert Hurst means when he says, "Blame is dangerous".

Helmet Head

Same reason we're lucky to have Robert Hurst join us, when he does.

So those who are interested - and there appear to be many - can get it straight from the horse's mouth.

John Forester

Consider the angles of required vision when riding on a sidepath through an intersection. For both cyclist and motorist, it is substantially impossible to check for traffic at the required angles. This is one reason for the higher rate of collisions per cyclist on sidepaths than per cyclist on the adjacent road. This was demonstrated in Wachtel's paper in the ITE Journal many years ago. The analysis of required angles of vision was done in 1972 and published generally in 1976. Any person who intends to be a cycling advocate should know these things; they are basic. Any person who just wants to entertain is wasting the time of those with more serious intent.

chipcom 

No, the point, John, is that the issue is more than just a technical one, so many opinions are welcome and indeed required for policy makers to come to an informed decision that takes into account ALL of the issues, not just your narrow technical view? IMO, if one is not willing to engage in discussion with those who may not have the same level of knowledge, he/she is pretty much useless in the areas of public policy AND education? Indeed, when engaged in educating cyclists, are you of the school that the student should only listen and that any questions he/she might ask are irrelevant and not useful to the lesson?

skanking biker

[QUOTE=joejack951]One does not need recreational facilities to learn how to love riding. I didn't grow up around any bike paths. QUOTE]


I never said so. When I was a kid, there were no bike paths either. I was simply pointing out that fact that many cyclists develop their love of cycling because of the recreational opportunities allowed by bikeways. In turn, this results in more cycling advocates and more people utilizing the roadways, and hence, more people to put pressure on the politicians to design safe roadways. The more people that safely use the roadways, the more comfortable and accepting motorists will become.

In fact, I beleive one of the primary reasons motorists get so angry at cyclists is because (in addition to the perceived notion of "slowing them down") there is also the sesame street factor--one of these things does not belong here. If 99% of the time you drive you do not encounter cyclists, I think you are more likely to not know how to drive appropriately around them. There is a gut instinct that says--hey--that doesn't belong here. On the other hand, if you are used to cyclists being part of the traffic flow and know to watch for them, you will more than likely treat them with more respect and acceptance, simply because you are used to seeing them.

I know this is not "scientific evidence" but case in point. The City of Madison, Wisconsin has some of the best biking "facilities" I have seen in this part of the country, including bike lanes, bikeways and wider lanes on newer roads. Madison is consistently ranked as one of the best cities in which to live if you like to cycle. There are bikeshops almost on every corner downtown (ok-maybe an exaggeration but there are a lot) and many people commute to work on the roads, as well as on the bikepaths. In fact, the city is probably better at clearing the bikeways in winter than the roads--thus, some of the bikeways are, in fact, safer in the winter. I am not saying the city is some biking utopia and that there are no problems w/ vehicle/bicycle interaction, (like the wonderful bikelane/buslane in the middle of the street with parking on eithrer side) but it does provide a good contrast to other cities in which I have lived like Milwaukee or Greenbay.

While lately these cities have attempted to become more bike-friendly, there are few biking facilities in these cities and while you will see a few people commuting to work on the roadways, there are not a whole lot. Further, at least in Milw., the biking facilities I have seen are not maintained well and are not connected. Also the number of bike shops is limited in these places. In Madison, the bike facilities are integrated into the rest of the road system so that you can get to most anywhere in the city safely on a bike.

In short (i know, too late), I believe that well-designed roads integrated with well-designed biking facilities can create a "culture of cycling" in a city that can lead to greater cycling awareness, advocacy, and safer cycling.


I know I never would have even dreamed of cycling to work in traffic had I not first felt comfortable doing so on a bikeway.

chipcom 

Sorry pal, but cyclists are allowed to use the Interstate in some parts of the country. I used to ride I-25 between Raton, NM. and Trinidad, Co all the time - legally. In some places, if you can't use the Interstate, you just plain can't get there from here.

Bruce Rosar

Just in case it hasn't already been pointed out, an intersection is a specific type of junction; that of two or more highways (a.k.a., roads, streets, etc.).

Helmet Head

That too.

I think there is much for everyone to learn here.

chipcom 

I'm willing to take the risk...and if it isn't, it's not like I never made a fool of myself before.

randya

Not sure what angles you're referring to or whether you are narrowly defining a 'sidepath' as something specific. Most MUPs I'm familiar with have intersections at right angles to the streets they cross, but they may not meet your definition of a 'sidepath'.

skanking biker

I can agree with that. Learning through an open exchange of ideas is always a good thing

chipcom 

What's to advocate, John...it is already being done and indeed HAS been done since before either you or I were a glint in our daddy's eye. As far as motorists go, do you really think that a 16yr old has the skills to drive a car in traffic after minimal 'sanctioned' training and no-brainer tests required to get a license? They usually don't, but we let them and the majority actually survive. While education is indeed important and desireable as a baseline, that baseline does not have to come from some sanctioned course (my daddy taught me to ride and drive) and experience provides the bulk of the education thereafter.

In the case of those who don't take up cycling until later in life, I would imagine that most of them have quite a bit of driving experience and understand at least the basic rules of the road, so they have a fair base to work from.

kalliergo 

(EDIT to add image)

Sidepath does, indeed, mean something specific: a path alongside a roadway. It is not just John's idiosyncratic usage; it is fairly standard terminology.

Paul L.

Ok I can relate to this a bit but still like MUPs for some things, wouldn't necessarily use them for transportation though (although my brothers pictures of his commute down a beautiful tree lined MUP in DC next to a traffic jam fill me with jealousy occasionaly).

Bruce Rosar

In neighborhood where I grew up, all we had to travel on were unmarked roads; there was nothing to the side of the road besides lawns and woods (i.e., no paths, walks, or shoulders).

That's one of the drawbacks to having cyclists using paths to the side of ordinary traffic; folks tend to perceive that pedal vehicles don't belong in the road with other vehicles.

I was just out pedaling on well-designed roads integrated with well-designed biking facilities; the markings for my cycling lane (that's whichever traffic lane I happened to be in) were always at least 10' wide.