Originally Posted by Bekologist

genec, john likes to mischaracterize bike infrastructure as 'bikeways' because it groups bike paths with on road bike infrastructure.

the rest of us vehicular cyclists know -except mossy john? know it is possible to ride vehicularily using integrated on road bike infrastructure like bike lanes.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

Another bogus Forester distraction/line of hot air B.S. meant to cause obstruction and fool the gullible.

What "law" funds all bikeways? Who said any bikeway is not "transportational" or is in violation of any funding requirement? Have you, John Forester, informed the appropriate authority of this alleged misallocation of funding/violation of this magic "law?" Has anybody but your handful of acolytes fallen for this line of legal gibberish?

Originally Posted by skanking biker

The only problem is that--as discussed in my other thread--some states, like my own, require non VC shoulder hugging riding unless it is "unsafe" to do so. Thus, the rules of the road apply only when the other provisions of the bicycle code make it "unsafe" not to do so. If the law says I have to ride on the shoulder, I at least want a WOL and won't complain about a bikelane.

Originally Posted by Bekologist

how about bike infrastructure, john?

"bike way" denotes off road paths, despite its collective.

Originally Posted by John Forester

The bicycle advocacy organizations spend lots of effort at the times when the federal highway bill is being renewed, with the intention of continuing and expanding the section that provides funds for "paths, shoulders, and lanes for the use of bicyclists."

Originally Posted by Bekologist

bike way, bikeways, whatever, john.

I prefer 'bike infrastructure' as it is not as stunted sounding as 'bikeway', which sounds like off road bike paths, despite its 'technical' definition.


"bike infrastructure" not "bikeway"; anyone with me on the former sounding less off-road than the latter?

Originally Posted by Bekologist

ho hum. i don't like 'bikeway' despite your insistence in its' technical correctness.

Originally Posted by Tom Stormcrowe

Frankly, barring me from the road and forcing me onto "facilities" would put a serious cramp in my cycling activities, considering I'm a bike tourist! I'm not against facilities, if they are equal quality to the road for my purposes, but that's totally impractical, unless the taxpayers want to foot the bill for a complete national "Bike road" network that would allow me to ride , say, from San Diego to Maine, or where ever else I want to go by bike.

Originally Posted by genec

Especially when treating them with equality, when in fact there may be significant differences betweeen them. Paths for instance may be long intersectionless routes, whereas bike lanes obviously have the same intersections as the road which they are upon.

Lumping "facilities" together semantically works only when one is "painting" with a broad brush.

Originally Posted by John Forester

I am very careful to distinguish the objects about which I write. If I write "bikeways", I mean all three types. If I write "bicycling facilities" I would be including far more items (you can attempt to decide all that are included). If I write "bike lane", that is the type of facility to which I refer.