galen_52657

"Actually, I think if JF read some of the postings here and at the Washington Post he might conclude that MUP riding cyclists had a superiority issue..."

Not quite. I do say that the high-speed cyclists are using the transportational bike paths in the intended way. When we established the safety design standards for bike paths, one of those standards was design for a safe speed of 25 mph, largely at my insistence. We looked on bike paths as miniature roadways, to be used as such. What we failed to anticipate was the lawless behavior of bike path users; we rather thought that the users would be cyclists who operated in the vehicular manner. Some paths that do provide useful transportation routes attract only vehicular cyclists in early week-day mornings, and these can be used as intended. However, the same paths in the afternoon attract chaotic traffic that prevents such use.

Of course, it is difficult to separate transportational from recreational use, for both roadways and bike paths. A considerable part of the traffic on roadways is recreational; however, very few highways have been built as purely recreational facilities. And, the recreational use has to be according to the traffic laws. For bike paths, the situation is different. Because the funding laws require that the facilities to be built have a largely transportational purpose, bicycle advocates have overstated the transportational aspect of a great many bike paths and have understated the recreational problems. It would be better if many bike paths had been built with park and recreational funds and accepted as recreational facilities, rather than trying to produce transportational facilities that are not very good at providing that function.