lala

I'm working on my response right now:

This comes from the Colorado Springs Independent:



Finding the trail


I see a lot of bicyclists riding up and down 30th Street between Garden of the Gods Road and Fillmore Street. This section of road does not have a bike lane. Therefore, it's dangerous for the riders and causes a lot of anguish for drivers.

I myself am a biker ... I'm not a "biker hater." I want to let these riders know that there is a trail not 100 feet from the street they are riding on! They can enter the trail at the north end of 31st Street, by Rock Ledge Ranch, and follow it all the way to the gas station at Garden of the Gods Road and 30th Street. It's totally safe, and it doesn't hinder cars. Seems like a win-win to me.

Being that the trail is far more scenic, and less smelly than the road, it's actually a win-win for the rider and a win for all the drivers. A win-win-win. The trail can also be entered from the entrance to the Garden of the Gods as well as from the aforementioned gas station when heading south. There's even a bridge to ride under 30th Street.

Whoopee! Use the trails, please, for everyone's sake.
-- Joe Mullally

Colorado Springs

genec

Does it need a negative response... not that there was any implication of negativity...

Is the trail any good... is there any reason not to use the trail. Granted if one needs access to something on 30th street, there should be no reason not to ride, but heck if a decent trail exists that doesn't cause one to play pedestrian, why not use it?

Those trails that force one into pedestrian mode, for any reason, really annoy me too... so if that is the problem... there is some basis for your response.

Mr. Miskatonic

Ah, I see. No bike lane = unsafe. If it is so dangerous, perhaps Joe could give statistics or somesuch to back it up? Or, is the 'anguish' of drivers the only active concern here, hmmm?

Except for all the other factors that make bike trails useless for travel. But who cares?!

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.

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). This is going to be a trend, I can tell.

Good luck with your reply.

genec

Do you know that this trail is useless? Some trails or paths actually work. I know of at least one (and not the only one) that saves cyclists loads of time by offering access to connections that are only otherwise quite a distance away or available only by freeway.

In the center of this map is a path that goes under the jumble of the freeways. It extends from Sante Fe in the south to Gilman in the north. The access at the northern end is not perfect, but any other route would probably involve several miles of steep hills.

This is quite a popular access. Although I would love to see the northern path/street access improved.

MassBiker

I wonder what Joe thinks if where I want to go isn't on the trail?

chemcycle

Anguish? LOL.....

genec

Yeah I guess Anguish is now defined as sitting in comfortable leather seat in an air conditioned environment listening to a CD on a 4 channel sound system while being strapped in a metal box moving at something less than 20MPH.

I can't find the dictionary that has that definition... but it must be around somewhere...

recursive

It's not really relevant to the letter, since he's only talking about one specific road that sounds like it is parallel to the trail in question, so it's a non-issue. Otherwise, you're putting words in his mouth.

Not that I agree with his letter. Notably the specious "therefore".

cydewaze

Perhaps we should write a letter to Joe and ask him to use the freeway to alleviate his anguish.

John E

Spot-on, Gene! I'll bet even Serge rides the Rose Canyon bikeway. If one is heading east across Oceanside, the San Luis Rey river path isn't bad, either.

What we need to establish, for the current discussion, are the convenience, safety, and other aspects of the Colorado trail in question.

Chris L

Oh dear, here we go again. If Joe thinks the trail is so wonderful, he is free to use it himself. The fact that others apparently choose not to, indicates that they don't necessarily share that opinion. The trail might be scenic or whatever else, but that is rarely a feature of interest to the commuting cyclist who has deadlines to meet. As far as the "safety" of the trail is concerned, I think that decision should be left up to the individual.

You know, it's these attitudes about bike paths generally that are the reason I rarely take an interest in advocacy these days. Instead of asking why cyclists aren't using the trail, and looking at addressing those issues, the author of this letter has simply decided that "all cyclists must use the trail" regardless. Either that, or it's yet another of those selfishness thinly disguised as philanthropy arguments that crop up from time to time when motorists start telling cyclists to "use the bike path for your own safety".

Personally, I wouldn't bother to dignify it with a response. If you live in that area, continue to make your own decision on where to ride on the basis of your own experiences, and let the whiners have their little whine. I'm sure many of them will become far more reasonable to deal with once they have it out of their system.

ehammarlund

Jeez, have you guys EVER given people the benefit of the doubt? When you read the letter (assuming you're not pissed before you start reading) it's clear that he's suggesting it for people who might not be aware of it. not all bike trails are obvious, especially if the access isn't right on the main road. That's why he he is trying to "let these riders know" the trail is there. He doesn't say "get on the trail and off the road".

I can see the conversation in person:
(biker on busy road, driver talking out of car)

D(politely): Hey, did you know there's an enormous empty newly paved bike path just on the other side of those woods? I thought I'd let you know--I thought you might like it better.

B: #$^%$! you, you %$%! cager!

D: Whatever.

Mr. Miskatonic

I don't really care how much you sugar coat it: The driver is suggesting that the bike does not belong on the road, and should use seperate, but not neccessarily equal facilities. Covering it with a bunch of alleged 'safety concerns' does not hide the underlying premise: Get off the road, biker. The use of the terms "anguish" and "hinder cars" pretty much spell it out.

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. I know all about it, it is simply something I choose not to use. I wonder how many other cyclists that driver gave such lousy information to?

I seriously doubt many cyclists in the road are unware of the path.

caloso

I can see this conversation too:

B (politely): Hey, did you know that there's an 8-lane interstate freeway just on the other side of that soundwall? I thought you might like to know--you might like it better since there are no bikes or pedestrians and you can drive for literally thousands of miles at 60 mph or faster!

D: %&%*^*^(&&%%^! Spandex-wearing fairy!

B: Whatever.

I've had quite a few drivers trying to be helpful in informing me of the bike path. You bet, it's great, it's the jewel of our local park system. But my office isn't on it. Nor is the store. Nor is my house. So I think I'll use this nice city street that my property and sales taxes, and not your gas taxes, paid for.

rs_woods

The author of the letter explicitly stated that he is a cyclist (not a "driver", as you called him). He's not saying that bikes don't belong on the road, but that the particular road is unnecessarily dangerous for cyclists when there is a bike path not far away that he feels is safer.

CB HI

lala, is this trail an unpaved gravel or dirt trail?

Sort of looks like it might be from the satillite photo.

Trail between my line and 30th St

It does not look like the trail is anymore scenic than that horrible smelly road is. Seems I25 is a much better route for the driver than and that horrible 30th Street.

genec

It may not be sugar coating it... there are some paths are are better than the street... and I know in this area there are some paths that are not even on the maps yet, so it is quite easy for a cyclists to not know they exist.

But a frame of mind that just dismisses outright any suggestions such as even checking out a path or John E's suggestion of at least telling us what the actual path conditions might be, just shows the arrogance of some riders to push for "rights" over any and all practicality.

John E simply suggested:
Even John Forester admits that some paths may offer a convenience to cyclists that might not otherwise exist. And yes, we all know of bad path examples... is this in fact one of these?

Mr. Miskatonic

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.

Certainly, I would have my doubts that he is not driving on this road, since his sympathies are obviosuly with the Anguished drivers. He says he sees lots of bikes on the road. Which means he either a pedestrian, a driver, or a cyclist. I doubt he's on that road with his bike, given his complaint, and I doubt his asessment comes from watching from the sidewalk, either.

Well, I can't say I have the statistics to confirm or deny his claim, but far too many 'bikes must stay in x' agendas have been for imaginary safety concerns. There is very little reason for me to think that this anything but another attempt to get bikes off the road for the sole benefit of cars.

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.

I'm sorry, but from where I sit, that is just plain weak. And I do confess I have a bug up my butt about people who use pretend concern to cover selfish desires.

Mr. Miskatonic

Maybe, but honestly I doubt it. I seriously doubt that if there enough cyclists on the road to express concern about them being there, that all of them have never managed to hear about this path. It just does not work that way. The pathway I mentioned above, for example, was being used before it was even partially complete. In fact, I think they are still working on it. But there are plenty of folks using it. I choose not to, since my needs are different, and it is no convenience for me. But the point is that this pathway isn't on the maps and just about every cyclist I know is aware of it.

genec

I can understand not using it because it doesn't go where you need to go... that's pretty basic.

But as far as other cyclists not knowing about a path... hey it does happen... folks get in the habit of going a particular way and they don't look for other routes as rarely does a new on open.

But the bottom line is that the rest of us (in the internet world) don't know if this path just sucks or is a viable alternative to some sucky street.

Care to clue us in so we too can comment?

Lion Steve

The bike trails here in, suburban and rural, Ohio have a designated speed limit 20 mph. This is plenty fast enough for most everyone to get where they want to go, and provide safety for everyone who uses it at a slower speed- walkers, runners, etc.

ehammarlund

If you're only going to ride on trails where you can do 30, you should only compare them to roads where you can do 30. Near my house, there's a trail which is occasionnaly crowded. But a steady 18 is actually faster than waiting at all of the stoplights on the road, even if you do 30 in between the lights and stop signs and left turners and pedestrians. You can blow them off, of course, but that's not legal.

Not incidentally, absent road crossings, there aren't many signs for this bike path, either.

Dchiefransom

Nice photo. Do you think he wrote that letter after leaving the Kissing Camels Club?

ehammarlund

Yeah, in your example--just like mine--one person is being polite, and one is an idiot. In your example, it's the driver.

Hell, if you don't want to ride on the path, don't ride on the path; that's not my point. I simply can't uderstand why you (or anyone here) would get so incensed at someone who _politely suggests_ (not 'impolitely demands') that you might _consider_ the bike path, as from their perspective it seems safer for everyone that way. I mean, where exactly can a reasonable person find something to ***** about in that statement? I suppose you could say "you aren't allowed to have an opinion about bikes" or something inane like that.

Hell, I like to ride, and I'd like to be a part of advocacy. But I often find it to too embarassing a club to join.

KrisPistofferson

"Joe" seems like an idiot who's read one too many Anthony Robbins bestsellers. "WIN-WIN-WIN!"