Originally Posted by
Helmet Head
This is the argument that was used to justify the first U.S. bike lanes in the late 60s and early 70s. The fear was that cycling was getting so popular that there would be cyclists all over the place, and they needed to be controlled. Is promoting this argument your idea of bicycling advocacy?
I want to flip the coin.
First, let me say that I often ride in the middle of the right lane on a four-lane, two-way street that has a bike path parallel to it, between the street and the RR tracks. Basically an "ideal" path, with limited intersections (the yellow "Share the Road" sign sporting a bicycle icon supports my practice, though the occasional motorist doesn't seem to agree.)
My feeling is that motorists don't give a damn about whether or not cyclists have a place to ride. They aren't the ones clamoring for bike facilities. It's cyclists themselves in Atlanta.
I agree that motorists benefit from cyclists being moved to the side in bike lanes and paths. But motorists aren't the ones pushing for bike facilities where I live.
Are things different in California? Am I missing something locally?