Originally Posted by
John Forester
Originally Posted by
John Forester 
The facts of the matter are that Genec provided the totally insufficient argument that since we spend space on arterial roads then bikeways are justified because we could use that space for bikeways. I responded by stating the obvious, that simple solutions to complex issues are the sign of simplistic thought. Then Human Car responded describing me as of deranged mind and a bullying personality, and added that I had provided no evidence for my statement. My statements about the arguments are obvious on their face; Genec's was simplistic, Human Car's added nastiness. The only other item of evidence needed is that the bikeways issue is complex, which is not something that anyone seriously doubts.
Your point is not that which Genec was making. All you are saying is that extra width is nice when it is made available, as it is in some circumstances. If I remember the discussions of Maryland law, cyclists are prohibited from major rural arterials unless they have a shoulder.
But also, pay attention to the history. I have been arguing for wide outside through lanes since before 1980, so don't bring up the canard that I am against it.
Originally Posted by
genec
If there is room to build high speed roads, there is room to build proper bikeways! It is as simple as that.
I am sorry but this sounds closer to what I am saying then what you are saying. High speed roads require a clear zone, it is a simple matter of paving into the clear zone.
The Maryland law under discussion has several components so it works out if they want to have a speed limit above 50mph they MUST provide a shoulder for our use. No shoulder, no speed limit above 50 and we can use the travel way. Or shorter, there is no prohibition on bicycle travel just mandatory shoulder use on roads with a speed limit above 50.