Originally Posted by genec

Go back and read my first post on this where I say at least twice that we need STANDARDS for PROPER PATHS...

Yes I agree that the paths that tend to exist (but not all cases) are poor... which I why I again say WE NEED STANDARDS FOR PROPER PATHS.

Indeed I COMPLAINED about how paths tend to fall into the control of parks departments not transportation departments and THIS IS A PROBLEM... (that was the part you said was contradictory... what I wrote was a reflection of what we have now, THAT IS POORLY DONE... due to lack of standards)

I am going to say it one more time WE NEED STANDARDS FOR PROPER BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PATHS.

Now lets discuss Freeways... Does one come right to your front door? Not to mine, not to anyone I know... because Freeways are only a partial solution... they connect areas, cores and cities. Bicycle paths can do the same thing... connect subdivisions, connect neighborhood cores and connect residential neighborhoods to business districts... but like Freeways, they DO NOT HAVE TO GO DOOR TO DOOR. Low speed (30MPH) streets that tend to exist in neighborhoods and downtown cores can serve bicycles just as easily as they now serve cars.

The problem I see right now is that wide high speed arterial roads (45MPH+) and Freeways serve motorists fine, but leave cyclists out in the cold... this is where properly designed bicycle transportation paths fit in. There is no need for such paths to go door to door, just as there is no need for a freeway to go door to door. But right now, automobiles are well served as they have the means to go from low speed streets to freeways, back to low speed streets.

Cyclists, on the other hand, are either restricted from freeways or they are forced to ride on marginal bike lanes , in high speed situations designed for fast automobiles (or on the current crappy paths). This is where proper paths should exist... so that cyclists do not have to use freeways and wide high speed arterial roads (designed for automobiles) to allow cyclists to connect to the same places that automobile drivers connect to in our auto centric society.

Is this clear yet... or should I show you google maps and how freeways DO NOT go from door to door... just as bike paths do not have to go from door to door.

And yes I agree with your comment as to the fact that "many bike paths are isolated and don't even go to low speed streets..." INDEED THIS IS A PROBLEM... because current paths are for recreation, not TRANSPORTATION. THUS WE NEED STANDARDS FOR TRANSPORTATION BIKE PATHS that DO connect to low speed streets and complete the entire transportation infrastructure for cyclists, much as that which motorists have today.

Stop pointing out what doesn't work, and start thinking about how to make a system that will work... rather than depending on our crappy automotive centric system that depends on cyclists being "brave," "the alpha dog," "strong" and "a road sneak" to get around on a system designed for drivers of automobiles. If we don't define what we want, we will only get more of the same second class crap!

If we build a system that properly addresses the needs of cyclists... indeed they will come. But as yet, we have not built such a system... we are instead treated to second class bandaid "solutions" that tend to be dangerous and poorly constructed... but as yet, none of our "Bicycle Transportation Engineers" has stepped up to address what real transportation bike paths, integrated with slow speed streets, should look like... thus we have a public that pretty much refuses to go out and play "road sneak" et. al. on a system designed for high speed heavy motor vehicles.