cudak888 

I'm having a good laugh over that 30th Street tunnel underpass.

One would think that those in charge of engineering the path would have had the sense to cut a dip in the road in order to increase headroom. A proper bike path shouldn't require dismounting for a tunnel.

On another note, no traffic stripes (or signs) were ever placed on that path either. Designed by leisure riders, for leisure riders, in my book.

-Kurt

Daily Commute

This would be my attitude, too. Sometimes, I just want to get from Point A to Point B quickly. Getting on and off the road and dealing with an MUP generally slows me down. The MUP was empty when you showed it. Is it always so? Even a ew joggers/walkers on an MUP can make it less attractive for cyclists.

That said, sometimes I want to go more slowly, so the MUP would be fine.

DigitalQuirk

Personally, I think that Joe Mullally is an idiot on two accounts.

First, when I find a great trail that doesn't get the use it deserves, I KEEP IT TO MYSELF! There's some great trails around my city that are fully paved and provide quicker access from various points to other points; in shady coolness which is a plus in the summertime. I really don't want word getting out about these trails, because then I get them all to myself to scoot about the city. This means a trail that doesn't get overcrowded. I only tell my closest friends on condition that they not tell anyone. There are some trails that used to be very good, until word got out about them...now everyone's using them, and to be honest, they suck now.

On the second account, Joe is about to learn that no good deed will go unpunished. Humans, in paticular white men who live in America, tend to be a very arrogant animal. You can't tell them ANYTHING useful without risking backlash from them. Just who the heck do you think you are, Joe? How can you know better? It's high time that people like Joe grew up. Just keep the trail to yourself, and to those who are not so arrogant that they think only they are always right.

Yes, Joe Mullally is a very stupid man...but I think he's about to get a LOT smarter very soon.

donnamb 

I approached the photos with an open mind, really. I think bike paths can be a really good thing in some places. I honestly don't see the problem with the road, but that isn't my main objection. There is no way I would ever ride on that path without a companion, preferably a male one, because of that tunnel. It would be unsafe if I had to ride through it or dismount and walk thorough because someone could be on the other side waiting out of my range of vision. I haven't avoided being a female victim of violent crime by just being lucky. That tunnel is an assault waiting for a time to happen. Too bad, that's quite a pretty ride.

rockyy3

Hilarious. Thanks. This group has won my heart. I was looking back over the whole thread, thinking of how there occurred what some described humorously as "baptism by fire". I sort of accepted that, for a day, then thought to myself this morning, is that an acceptable answer? Is the group acceptable to the fact that newbies are greeted by some here with fire? Now that I have looked back, I see that to some in the group, this isn't acceptable. I would guess that their motivations for being in the group are to learn, to educate and to encourage others. Many asked for more info before assessing my person, for example. In fact, as I looked back at what originally felt like a room full of flamers, I realized that without one huge flamer, it wouldn't have felt like a wall at all. There was on person who, right off the bat, assailed my person, passed on vague assumptions in place of thoughts or thought-out conclusions. There was one person who seemingly wanted a fight. This person may believe he/she is an advocate. Perhaps this person has been manning the post too long. Or perhaps this person has motivations I know nothing of. What I do know is, this person is not motivated to bring about understanding nor enlightenment. I wouldn't doubt that many have been scared right out of this group and have gone on to become huge anti-cyclists or at least anti-advocates. Is that what the group is after, scaring people off? No. As a whole, I can see that now. It didn't feel that way, when I found myself greeted by this, before I had a chance to say hello:
----quotes----
Or, is the 'anguish' of drivers the only active concern here, hmmm?

I'm sure it is fine for those going 10 mph. For those cylists wanting to get somewhere, however, the definition of 'win-win-win' is not the same as Joe's

More like segregation for Joe's sake.

The driver is suggesting that the bike does not belong on the road

He can claim to be all whatever he wants. Any dang fool who gets on a bicycle can claim to be a 'cyclist'. The attempt to use that as a position of authority from which he suggests pathways that may not be a benefit for cyclists holds no water with me.

And I do confess I have a bug up my butt about people who use pretend concern to cover selfish desires.

Someone gave me grief the other day for not "using the bike trail". Said bike trail was over five blocks away and has some lovely blind spots. (the new Schuylkyl Trail, for you fellow Philadelphians).

As I mentioned in my top thread, I have had people 'inform me' of a bike path (MUT, actually) I should use that was far away...and dangerous.

If it is so dangerous, perhaps Joe could give statistics or somesuch to back it up?

He has no examples of accidents involving bicycles, no incidents. His only claim to make it dangerous is that there is no bike lane. Not exactly effective safety-asessment criteria.
-------end quotes------

I include a few points in which this person is fairly self-contradictory or displaying an attitude of "I'll say whatever rather than be understanding". Point one, calls me out to provide stats because I used the word dangerous, yet describes a local trail as dangerous- and provides no stats. Refers to said trail once as "5 blocks away", later as "far away". Which is it, 5 blocks or far? Beyond that, without yet saying hi to the group, without being present to defend myself, this person knows me to be selfishly motivated, accused of writing the letter "for Joe's sake"; words are placed into my mouth such as "bikes don't belong on the road". I'm a dang fool who calls himself a cyslist, etc.
I guess my point is, what is your motivation? I may have been naive when I wrote the letter in the Indy. I've learned. How, why did I learn? Because that's a motivation for me. I'd rather admit to being foolish and grow than defend myself at all costs and shrink. I would hope the idea with the group is to create community, to build community, and to grow. You are alienating people. If you don't mean to, if that is not your motivation, examine yourself. I am changed, I have new information to use because I stayed open to it. Thisgroup has added to my life. You almost stopped that from happening, and I haven't any doubt you have stopped it before. So please, stop doing that. If this is how you behave in a newsgroup, and if you think you are merely standing up for your rights, all the while flaming away, then I dont think it's a stretch for me to use this actual, real-world info I have about you- your own actions and words- to surmise that you would instigate trouble out there on the road as well. On the road, or anywhere, given time, I will always consider "the other side". Drivers are not our enemies, they are US, our familes, old ladies, etc. I ended my letter to the Indy with the attitude I have- for everyone's sake. That's my motivation. You wanted to make that selfish. I think that indicates your own selfishness.

rockyy3

I feel compelled to explain something else, based on email replies...when I take a photo of my foot on the side of the road and say "this is how much room...", I fully understand that this is not all of the legal room a cyclist (not biker- I am learning) has. In actual practice, though, the people who bike that section of road are encountering the packs of cars frequently. The bikers do not claim their lane, they all get over to the shoulder. Since this happens at least every 10 seconds, in the real world, the space I am pointing to is the space they give themselves by taking that route, because they will get over and will be passed. IN many places, and I can go back and take pics if need be, there are metals barriers, so that if a car passes you and the driver happens to veer over for whatever reason, you have no place to escape. When I initially described the road as dangerous, I meant in comparison to the trail. You cannot get hit by a car, accidentally or not, on the trail. On most roads, you have room to escape. Here, I don't think you always do.

Daily Commute

Even when there is an empty nearby MUP, I sometimes stay on the road because I have to merge out of traffic and back in. Going North on this stretch appears to require two left turns--one off of 30th Street, and a second back onto 30th street. For many cyclists, it's just not worth it for 1.25 miles (about 4 minutes at 20mph).

I think the biggest problem with the letter was that it told cyclists to ride using the author's preferences. Some of us have a lot higher tolerance for auto traffic (and for slowing down auto traffic) than others. Some roadies would rather not take a route that would require them to break cadence (especially when it's only 1.25 miles/4 minutes).

Some of us fight hard for the right to use the road. Trails are a nice addition to roads, but I would fight against any MUP (or bike lane) if the price was losing legal access to the road.

The key is choice. Your letter did not acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons for some cyclists to choose to use that portion of the road.

I'm glad you enjoy the path. Others might choose not to.

chephy

That's precisely why you GIVE yourself room to escape by moving to the left. You say this narrow stretch is short anyway - you aren't going to delay anybody for hours.

As for what you call "flamers"... you should realize you touched a very sensitive spot. The attitude that cyclists don't belong on the road is so widespread and aggravating that anybody who suggests it on these boards shouldn't be surprised when people react negatively and somewhat... um... passionately. They've also usually been through this sort of discussion a thousand times with different folks, and know the sort of arguments that are usually presented to defend the "cyclists should get off the road" viewpoint - so they are already ready for them and sometimes start defeating them before they even come.

And, truthfully, they have a reason to be upset, even with a polite letter like yours. Galen explained why a few posts earlier.

noisebeam

Seeing the pics provided made it even more clear to me that a cyclist going thru the area for transportation should use the (quite nice) road.
Have any cyclists been killed by that tunnel at night. Yikes.
The road surface looks great, don't know what is meant by the photo with text saying there is more gravel than on the trail.I
The road isn't even that narrow, certainly places to move right and let a motorist who has slowed and acknowledged you to pass.
And it has escape, one can tumble into the dirt/grassy shoulder.
The worst part of the trail is not the trail itself, but its transitions to/from other routes/road, with curbs, gravel.
The trail also crosses a x-street as seen in one later photo. Very dangerous.
Al

chephy

The author means, I surmise, that cyclists should/do ride on the narrow and unpaved shoulder where they encounter the dirt and gravel...

rockyy3

The tunnel- you don't actually have to dismount, just duck. It's 6'4". Measure that and try it- it's easy to get under. Looks much worse in the photo.
The gravel- someone suggested early on that the trail I was recommending was probably dirt and rocks.
Escape- I didn't photo it well enough. I can if you're interested. I understand if you're not. I'm not. (-:
There are places where there is only the metal barrier and the amount of space shown, for those of us who don't command the road. I would certainly recommend what many have said, for those who DO use this stretch of road, to take the lane if need be. They don't. I've never seen one do so. These were the people I was addressing.
Trail transitions- Only on the south end is there a transition. On the north end it merges into the street. But the south end thing, I can understand- for transportational riders at least. My feeling is, there aren't many. I have no stats. I wrote the original letter (this late in the thread you may not have seen how the thread started) to a local paper, intended for locals, and I've spent a good deal of the time explaining things I woudln't have to explain to locals, like that this is where recreational riders ride. I say this not as if it's any kind of proof, but to explain my mindset in writing the original letter. Someone else posted the original letter in this group, and I stumbled across it, vainly searching my name via Google. I'm answering a letter, addressed what I percieved to be to local recreational riders, in a worldwide/nationwide forum to people who sound to be, in large part, transportational riders in more intense situations than Co. Spgs. I suppose a current resident of Baghdad would laugh at all of us and say that if not more than 50% of the people on 30th have guns, it's safe. That's pretty relative. But look at both of sets of pictures and ask yourself, as a pedestrian or rider, which route looks safer? Not "which route am I personally capable of doing?" Which way would you rather your son or daughter take, if they are merely walking? As I said early on, based on the criteria (mistaken criteria in ways I've acknowledged) I was working with, I wrote the dang letter.
What did I think? I thought to myself, what can I do here? I see cars and bikers hating each other. I see a way around it. I write a local letter. Having been a manager for years, I don't *****, I make a suggestion instead. That's what managers need to hear, not what I think is wrong, but what I think could fix it. *****ing about a problem doesn't help solve it. I would only write a letter addressing an issue of any kind, with a suggestion. It turns out my suggestion is non-PC, and I can understand why. I still believe there are many folks putting themselves in greater danger than need be on that route. But I certainly grant that it is up to them to choose.

cudak888 

Still not enough for most folks on upright bar machines. I know it from experience - ever tried riding out of a parking lot with 6'5" clearance on a 20" folding bike? I have. Not that easy.

(As for why I rode inside a parking lot, that's another story. One could write a whole book about the odd forms cycling takes in the city...)

Let's take that to the extreme though, and try it with a taller person on a modern, full-suspension MTB with a high BB. Ducking is not an option, unless you pull your behind off the saddle, over the rear tire, and slam your chest on the top of the saddle. MTB Freeride manuvers shouldn't be required whilst riding on a cycle path.

'Noisebeam' made a good point there too - how well lit is that tunnel at night, may I ask? Is it visible, or is it dark enough to justify the existence of the V-Brake right then and there?

Take care,

-Kurt