Originally Posted by Minerva
Do recreational riders think that the road is off-limits if a bike path is available and is there a reason (besides pride) that the 'elite' use only the road? I get the sense that there is sort of a distain for bike paths in general.
How does the adjacent bike path fit into the total transportation picture. IMHO: A cyclist who rides regularly and is out for a 30+ mile ride is unlikely to merge onto an adjacent bike path that only covers 3 miles of their intended route. They will most likely elect to stick to the lane vs. add more "intersections" to their days ride. An occasional rider who is out for a <12 mile ride (particularly if it's an out and back) will elect the trail since it comprises a good portion of the day's riding. The complaint you often hear about dedicated bike infastructure is, "it's imcomplete and dosn't go where I'm going". That's going to more and more true the farther you ride. In my region we have two bike freeways. Every level of cyclists "disdains" the adjacent roads and uses the trails. They connect to other routes, they are fairly long and much faster than the urban streets that comprise the "alternatives".
If the previous question regarding counting children was directed at my bike census post. The answer is yes, I counted children. There were two in the total. I was counting at 7-9am on two school days. The two kids I saw I would guess they were out with their Home Schooling Mom for gym class (just a guess).
Scot