HH, It seems we aren't anywhere near as far apart on a lot of issues as I had thought! This is exactly the type of infrastructure I'd like to see.
I'd like to see some separate "Commuter and Utility" paths set up here in Lafayette and am currently in an uphill battle with the city government. Basically, I've gotten it to the stage where they are saying "Yes, but....". It's progress though, now that they've figured out that I'm not going to go away and quit bugging them.
On another note, does anybody have any ammunition I can use to get the city to actively look into federal funding of Utility paths along some of the more dangerous roads for Cyclists, such as the Indiana 38 corridor?
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
I strongly support
segregated cycle facilities that are bike paths such as the one you describe, for many of the reasons you cite.
I agree with Roody that the bike paths that serve transportational purposes, like the one that you describe, are appropriate to be funded with transportational dollars.
Further, I think it's important that such paths be built to certain standards, including the right of injured cyclists to sue whoever is in charge of maintaining a path for damages caused by maintenance negligence (just as we can sue whoever is in charge of maintaining a road or sidewalk or damages caused by maintenance negligence). I bring this up because, at least in CA, the courts currently are treating paved bike paths like "wilderness paths" for which nobody is held responsible for maintaining.
In other words, if your path collapses underneath you on your ride to work, and the collapse is shown to have been caused by negligent maintenance, you can't sue anyone for your damages and lost time at your new job. This is partially why bike path maintenance probably tends to get less priority than roads and sidewalks.