"Safe, convenient pavement riding is far more likely to attract new and former cyclists."


That is absolutely true. The problem ACA faces is that many of their 38 routes do not offer safe, convenient pavement riding for their entirety.


There is a kind of dogged absolutism to ACA routes, born of the epic cross-country vision and mission of the organization. If you go to the ACA website and read the Riding Conditions tabs for assorted routes (Sierra Cascades, Southern Tier, Bicycle Route 66, you name it), there is constant messaging that goes, "be very careful on the stretch between ____ and _____." Basically, this is ACA saying "X miles of this route put you in danger."


I mean ...

• CA 120 from Lee Vining to Tioga Pass?
  
• AZ 89 between Prescott and Wickenburg?
  
• Rim Drive in Crater Lake National Park?
  

Are you #@^)#)& kidding me?


I would not ride these roads if my life depended on it. Actually, my life could depend on not riding these roads.


Jamawani, as your original post suggests, ACA would benefit from developing shorter, less ambitious and less dangerous routes that focus on a special region or micro-region of the U.S. ACA's new Klamath Mountains Loop (admittedly part gravel) is an intriguing example, and I bet we see several others like it in the next few years, presuming a financially healthier ACA.


Yes - I realize that on every long/epic bike tour, you are going to end up riding some potentially dangerous or less-than-ideal miles. It comes with the territory.


But, a better, safer, shorter tour that covers less territory might provide a better experience.