Originally Posted by
Six jours
I've made no secret that my current opinions have been influenced by my current location -- that's one of the reasons I'm on record as saying something along the lines of "People should figure out what works for them in their situation, while remembering that their situation is unique". IOW, dogma isn't helpful.
But you are spouting dogma by suggesting that alternative routes or curb hugging is a viable solution. Heck I can't even get to the curbs in the area in and around my neighborhood. In other areas I willingly use the available bike lanes. But when there is no other way, I will and do take the lane. Narrow roads lined with parked cars offer no other alternative.
Originally Posted by
Six jours
I've ridden in both places. Occasionally I "took the lane". I did not, however, ever feel as though I needed to make a habit of it, nor that "default center" was anything but a fool's game.
Which again brings us to the definition of "no choice". IMO, many VC advocates feel they almost always have "no choice", even in situations where the great majority of cyclists would be riding the shoulder.
The "shoulders" here are curb filled parked cars. The majority of slow moving cyclists ride on the sidewalk. Is that your solution too?
Originally Posted by
Six jours
I apologize for ever having heaped criticism upon any body else's riding style. And I stand by my opinion that "taking the lane" is a poor and avoidable choice in most situations, that anyone arguing that "VC" is always the correct thing to do is wrong, and that substituting "VC" dogma for encouraging the development of bike lanes is stupid.
Well we partially agree... I think the discouragement of facilities by the strict VC crowd is just as foolish as not taking a lane when one needs too.
Originally Posted by
Six jours
And again, I've done plenty of riding around canyons and mesas and still rarely found it necessary to impede traffic.
I think you misunderstand... the nature of the road designs here follow geography of the area... the paths through the canyons and between mesas... hence only one road may go through... while other roads terminate on top of a mesa at the canyon edge... thus no alternative route.
Originally Posted by
Six jours
BTW, if "taking the lane" is always safe and appropriate, and car drivers just have to deal with it, why does that freeway have a bike lane? You should be able to just ride in front of 70 MPH traffic and expect the motorists to smile and wave as they safely change lanes to pass you. Right?
I have made the same argument while citing the need for lowered speed limits... it is my contention that strict VC cycling "falls apart" when there is a high speed differential between cyclists and motorists... thus 50MPH+ arterials with freeway like ramps should not exist on shared surface streets and cycling advocates should not support groups that promote such designs.
BTW some freeways are quite ridable... and legal. I have personally ridden the interstates from San Diego to Arizona.