Originally Posted by
Technojunkie
If there are dedicated paths for nonmotorized traffic (MUPs, etc), people will feel reasonably safe. If they have to share the road with cars, whether the road is at full capacity or half is largely irrelevant. The speed of that traffic is very relevant though. I've been browsing around
Google Maps satellite view for reasonably sane bike routes and for a newbie rider it's tough. If you want to avoid the main roads there's no way to go in a remotely straight line most of the time. The steep hills I have to deal with are not helping.
The "not safe" complaints are very legitimate. Cities are going to have to build safer bike paths and work with LBSs to get people to use them. No safe paths, no European-level riding rates even if gas hits $10/gal. Coulda/woulda/shoulda complaints about street design are irrelevant. Maybe now that gas prices are climbing municipalities will be more receptive to building such paths.
This isn't realistic for more reasons than one. You have to get to and from the paths and that means using the street.. unless people are willing to ride 3+ miles on the sidewalk, which will get old, fast. There are already such paths which, in the words of many, "don't go anywhere" or are too indirect, too meandering, etc. Paths are expensive and telling people to use the roads is so much cheaper and more attractive to governments who are looking for ways to reduce expenses, not increase them. Worst of all, building more paths will encourage the mentality that "it's safe to ride, but only if there's a dedicated path that will take me there and if there's no path, I better drive instead".