Joe Gardner

BY TAMMY McPHERSON

The beginnings of a future bike path between Utah and Salt Lake counties started last summer when an accident claimed the life of a cyclist near the Point of the Mountain.

Bill and K'lyn Wilson of Bluffdale woke to a phone call last July notifying them that their 20-year-old daughter, Natalee, died when she was hit from behind by a semi-truck. She had been bicycling with two friends and a sister on the east Frontage Road by the Point of the Mountain, a road known for its narrow width and busy truck traffic.

Because of that accident, a group of government officials, area bicyclists and the trucking companies that travel to and from the gravel pits on the Point of the Mountain, are working together to create a bike trail parallel to the road.

"Bikes and trucks don't mix. We just don't want it to happen again," said Melanie Larson, president of LTI Inc., one of the trucking companies that has stated it will donate as much of its equipment and manpower to build the trail as it can.

Many cyclists ride the road because it is the only connector between Salt Lake and Utah counties. Some, like local bike racer Jeff Stenquist, often commute to work on the road, sharing it with 100,000-pound cement and gravel trucks.

Stenquist, who rides from his Draper home to work in American Fork, says he has also had some close calls on the road. Because of the accident, and the importance of the route for cyclist transportation, progress on finding an alternate area for the cyclists is gaining momentum.

"That just kind of lit a fire under me," said Stenquist, who has been actively involved in the proposed bike trail plans for at least six months.

The participating groups are proposing to use part of the right of way the Utah Transit Authority recently purchased from Union Pacific for the future extension of commuter rail into Utah County. UTA is reviewing the group's application to make sure that when the railway is built in the next 10 to 15 years, the trail wouldn't have to be torn out, said Jeffrey Harris, asset manager of development at UTA.

While the group is waiting for approval, a local design firm is drafting the 15-foot wide paved bike path pro bono, said Jim Price, project trails manager for Mountainland Association of Governments.

Price is also working with the concrete, sand and gravel companies on the Point of the Mountain, companies the group would normally hire for the project, to see what resources they can donate. The donations are crucial to building the trail, which is planned to run about three miles from State Road 74 to Highland Drive in Draper, Price said.

By using local resources and donations to jump-start the cause, the group will not have to wait for federal grant monies, which could delay the project for years, Price said. The group does not have preliminary cost estimates.

The effort to build the path in Natalee's memory touches the Wilsons.

"It means quite a bit to us," said Bill Wilson, who attends the planning meetings for the trail.

The success of the bike trail depends not only on the funding, but also on the assurance that the bicyclists who use the road now will use the trail.

Many who use the road are experienced cyclists who ride at a fast-pace. High-speed cyclists don't usually ride bike trails, said Travis Jensen, chairman of the Provo Bicycle Committee.

This is why engineers are designing the trail wider, allowing for a two-way trail for bicyclists coming from both directions. They are also working on putting underground tunnels where the proposed trail and the gravel and trucking companies driveways intersect. With tunnels, the bicyclists won't have to stop along their route and truckers won't have to worry about not seeing a bicyclist, Jensen said, who also is a local engineer.

Although these upgrades add to the cost of the project, the extra money is worth it to ensure that cyclists will use it, he said.

"If you build it and no one uses it then you've wasted your money," Jensen said.

While the road used to be used only by the hard-core cyclists, and for the most part still is, increasingly more recreational riders as well as youth have been trying out the popular bike route. The trail will be able to accommodate the larger number of riders, said Stenquist, who has been riding the road for years.

Full Story https://www.harktheherald.com/article.php?sid=79014

Joe Gardner

I ride this road at least once a week, and have had more close calls then i can count. Its great to see the community come together for this project, sadly, its one cyclists life to late.

I can't wait till the trail is done, It looks like this will be one worth riding, as its is truely being designd for the "experienced cyclists".

NZLcyclist

15 feet wide....sounds like a proper sized one for bi-directional cycling traffic?

Brendon

AndrewP

I dont think there will be too many pedestrians or dogs on this trail.

Guest

I hope there are NO dogs OR pedestrians on that trail. If it gets anywhere like the Chicago lakefront bike path, it will be a nightmare and drive away the cyclists, which is the original reason why the trail was built.

I'm glad to see they're taking such proactive measures. They're supposed to be doing something like this in Chicago- perhaps I'll send this story over to them for inspiration, although bikes are not allowed on highways or expressways in Illinois for this very same reason- too dangerous.

KB

Spire

Around Montreal there are sepearte paths (next to each other frequently) for pedestrian use and for bicycle use. This doesn't usually stop roller-bladers from using the path and you can still get extremely slow cyclists or children on the trail, but that seems like an acceptable tradeoff

hayneda

Here is another blatent example of the wrong way to solve the problem. Obviously, the problem is the existing road is substandard width. Why not simply fix that problem, making the road safer for cyclists and motorists, instead of building a "bicycle facility" to get cyclists off the road? We cyclists shoot ourselves in the foot every time we advocate a "separate but equal" approach.

Dave

Guest

Until they do some radical policing of the roads, and beat it into the heads of motorists that we are part of the traffic, I ain't goin' out on no highway anytime soon!

We may shoot ourselves in the foot, but we certainly will survive that shotgun wound in the foot over getting hit from behind by a mac truck anyday.

KB

oscaregg

My own habit is one of MAXIMUM DISCOURTESY to non-bicyclists when circumstances force me into one of these Jim-Crow-Ways. Yeah, it ain't nice, but really many of the walkers and skaters on bike paths are motorists whose behavior towards cyclists has probably built up some karma........................

joeprim

Aren't you acting like a motorest when you do that?
Joe

Joe Gardner

Honestly, there is no room to widen the road, and keep riding safe for not just experts, but families. The planed trail will be about 20 feet away from the current road. Normally, I would agree with you, in fact, Utah County has over 100 miles of on the road bike trails, and is very bike friendly. This road is not.

On the South side of the road, 15' away, we have a 6 lane highway with a posted speed limit of 75MPH. I doubt they can expand that way, for safety issues. As it is, we have a single chain link fence between the cyclists and this traffic.

On the North side of the road, we have truck turn offs every few hundred feet. The trucks that use these roads are 100,000 pound monsters, and you can expect one to fly by you every minute. Cyclists that ride west (north side of the street), have to deal with these trucks turning onto the lot.

For safety reasons, I can see why they want to go with a separate path, with tunnels under the driveways.

You also have to keep in mind; this is the only road other then the interstate that connects the two valleys. More then once, I have driven to SLC just to avoid this road.

I am all for the path

Raiyn

If you've EVER had a 18-wheeler blow by you at speed while on a bike you'll understand why this path is a GOOD thing.

Chris L

Are you looking at the same picture as me? I can see plenty of room to widen the road in that shot. In fact, they could probably do it more easily and cheaply than building the path.

It wouldn't take much. I also take issue with this idea that trucks=bad. In this country, the truck drivers (the ones who drive the real trucks, not the wanna be tossers in pick-ups) are far and away the most courteous of any road user group - inspite of their undeserved bad reputation.

I will also pose another question. What happens when all the ribbon-cutting ceremonies end? What will the path be like in 12 months time, when some maintenance needs to be done? Will it end up like the path they built at Werris Creek - i.e. OK for a while but never maintained? Somehow I get the impression that the maintenance side of things will be a problem.

Chris L

I can honestly say that highways are among the safest places I have ever cycled. About the only thing that keeps me away from the highways is the superior scenery usually offered by the back roads. If someone puts a path right next to the highway, I personally will use the highway every time.

Joe Gardner

Chris, That picture is horible, it was taken right before the road turns off. Just down the road, and for most the length, the road is within feet of the fence, and on the other side, is the breakdown lane for I-15.

Chris L

Point taken, as you probably know that area better than I do. However, I still can't get excited by the path in view of the other unresolved questions I posed earlier (and of course, I neglected to mention the access on and off the path, which is another key issue). I think cycling advocates need to tread very carefully here.

Joe Gardner

From what i understand, this trail will parallel this access road for just the length of the gravel pit. The main idea is to get cyclists away from the hundreds of big trucks that drive on this road. Once you pass the pit, the trail will merge back into cycle lanes painted on the main road, were we have more then enough space.

Guest

Ok, Chris.

Come on down to Chicago and ride the expressways once. Better yet, go on down to Europe and get on the Autostrade and ride your bike. Then let us know how you think these drivers are.

I don't know about the rest of youall, but here in Chicago, if drivers can barely function with us on local roads, they probably will be much less efficient at recognizing us on the expressways. Your highways are safe because there is MUCH less traffic there than here. I know- I've driven on those same roads. Comparing Australian highways with the same highways in our country, then claiming that highways are a safe alternative because your country's traffic is much more scarce is moot. There's no point to making a comparison. I'd ride the Australian highways anytime myself (except at night, when the kangaroos are likely to run you down!)- they are pretty deserted, when compared to the Dan Ryan Expressay.

I took my bike on the Autostrada in Greece- it was one of the scariest experiences I've ever had- and I honestly think I was just lucky nothing bad happened to me. I have a lot of stomach, and I've seen some crazy and dangerous things, but riding that expressway was pretty up there on the list. And riding the expressways in Chicago? Forgeddaboudit!

Let's not forget here in the USA, where truck drivers often drive for days without sleeping, or with very little sleep to get shipments across the USA on time. Do I really want to be on the road with my puny little bike? Not really. So if they build a path next to the highway, I'm on it.

Chris, you have a personal invite to come on down to Chicago- in the snow, in the winter, and riding on the Dan Ryan at 7:30AM headed into the city on Monday morning. C'mon over.

Joe, I've ridden that same highway once. I was almost scared $hitless when I was in that traffic- people drive faster than I can possibly imagine... and I was in a car! I will never ride that highway again. It's a good thing they've got that path going. I'd take it one step further and ask them to erect a concrete divider at least 3 feet high along the length of the trail on the off chance some truck driver falls asleep at the wheel and strays over into the bike lane (for instance).

Koffee

Chris L

Do a search of the forums on "motoring primates" and you'll know what I already think about drivers. I doubt that experience will change my opinion much. My views on highway cycling are all about the quality of infrastructure and the available space when compared to an inadequately constructed bike path that would fail a basic safety standard that would be applied to any other structure in existence.

As I have said elsewhere, traffic density has nothing to do with cycling safety. Heck, even on the roads out here it's noticeably safer when there's a bit of traffic around than when there's not. Don't forget there's an inverse relationship between the volume of traffic and the speed of traffic.

Then, of course, this neglects the competence of the drivers. I'd rather deal with a million competent drivers than one idiot. Also don't forget that driving on a road is much different to cycling on it. I remember having no qualms riding across the old Pacific Highway across the Burringbar Range, while drivers wiped themselves out on it with such regularity, the NSW government spent > $300 million on bypassing that section.

I wish I had just $1 for every time someone's told me I was "just lucky to survive" a section of road I had ridden. Could it be that cycling in traffic is simply not as dangerous as the hype suggests?

No news to me, same thing happens out here. Kind of says something if they are the best drivers in the country, doesn't it?

Can you afford the airfare? In any case, what sort of scenery does that area have? I think I mentioned in an earlier post that the scenery has a greater influence on my chosen route than where someone tells me I "should" ride.

And what happens if someone decides the need to leave the bike lane/path at some stage (i.e. going somewhere that isn't necessarily on the path, avoiding debris etc)? This is the main problem I have with bikepaths and so on. What about the cyclist who wants to use it for transport? What about someone whose idea of cycling goes beyond "put the bike in the car, drive to the path, ride, put bike back in car, drive home"? Concrete walls on bike paths will only make them worse.

Believe it or not, I'm not as anti-cycling facilities as it would sometimes appear. However, I just want to see (for once) both sides of the "separate but equal" equation satisfied, and I'm not convinced they will be.

Guest

And the problem is, there is a lack of safety for cyclists on these highways because the majority of people driving on it are not anticipating the cyclists.

It DOES help if there's less traffic to contend with. Sure, that idiot driver who drank too much or that truck driver who hasn't slept in three days is just as likely in your neck of the woods as ours, but at the same time, if you multiply that factor by 20, that's our scenario compared to yours. That makes your chances of getting hit by some idiot driver 20 times less likely. I'll take those odds anyday.

Keep in mind, truck drivers are NOT considered the best drivers in the country- not in our country at least. If they are in yours, you are pretty darn lucky to be living in such a country.

Even your worse case scenario of encountering trucks in your country is not as extreme as ours. That road Joe referred to has more trucks travelling on it than I could even stop to count- and that's all hours of the day and night.

I wish I had a dollar for every idealistic optimist that said that the road a cyclist was on couldn't have been as bad as it was supposed to be because I DIDN'T get hurt- traffic on these highways are bad- but if you haven't been there to experience it, it would be difficult for you to imagine it. The more experience you have with different roads in different countries, the more you gain an understanding about what the rest of us are talking about. That's why you've got the open invite to come over and visit. As an aside, traffic in Greece was insane- and no, they weren't used to seeing a cyclist on the roads. I had near misses, people yelling at me, and trucks whizzing by so fast I almost overturned my bike on several occasions. I am not afraid to go out into traffic on roads when I need to, and I certainly do think they should erect cycling pathways with highways, but that day, out in Greece, travelling on the autostrada, I was trembling and praying for my life. I got lucky. It doesn't need to be said that I was hallucinating, and that my fears are unfounded because someone thinks the traffic is not all that bad. Be thankful I didn't get hit.

Speaking of which, if I had the money, of course I'd send for you. But you better believe, you better be ready to work off that ticket, boy! That's a lot of money for me to shell out and not expect something!!!

Volume of traffic is only part of the issue- acceptance of cyclists is quite another. Consider China, where there is a multitiude of cyclists on the roads regularly. The car traffic is aware and accepting of bikes on the road. Now consider Salt Lake City, where car traffic is basically unaware of cyclists and unaccepting of bikes on the road. Then when cyclists attempt to ride these roads, they get hit and die. Then we're supposed to say "we'll just merge the cycling traffic with the cars and trucks" and hope for the best??? No. The answer is not there. I am not sure at this point there is a short term solution for the problem, except to build the path for now, and work on educating the masses later. We could do the education now, but with so many people on that road at so many times, how are we supposed to find the motorists that frequent these roads and get them educated? We could also just blanket all motorists with educational pamphlets, but I doubt the majority of auto drivers would even bother. We could include more education for new drivers and high schoolers, which would work, but it still would take several years. We could revoke everyone's licenses and force them to start out from point 0 and force them into some aggressive training and education towards being aware of cyclists on the road, but that's not going to happen. So what's the solution?

It gets frustrating from time to time to see people who don't experience what we experience telling us how things should be. That is quixotic thinking- I truly don't think over the short term, you are going to be able to educate drivers on a dangerous road, and to subject cyclists to dangerous situations and expect them to hang in there while the problem is solved is impractical, at the very least. This is the short term solution, and unless you can offer a better solution, it's the best one.

For the record, I don't think you're anti-bike path or whatever, Chris. I do hope the day comes when we can ride on highways with cars and trucks with no fears of being flattened. I get tired of riding the streets and paths myself to get to point B when I know if I could just jump on that expressway, I could get to point B much faster and more directly. BUT at the same time, I need to have that assurance that I won't die in the process. I don't have it right now, so I'm sticking to local roads and bike paths. I just want to see (for once) a more realistic approach to the problem, as opposed to the officious and whimsical approach based on speculation and unsubstantiated opinion.

oscaregg

Sometimes it's about holding onto territory, and us alt-trans folks are too wimpy; we will either be totally trampled or will someday learn that winning ugly is still winning.

"Adolf Hitler on a bicycle would be a better human being than Albert Schweitzer in a car" Spokewrench Lightnin', 1975

Chris L

So what does that actually suggest? That your truck drivers are worse than ours? Or that the drivers of all the other vehicles over there are simply better behaved than their counterparts over here? The above statement really confirms nothing. Remember that a red neck in a pick up can kill just as effectively as an "18 wheeler". The only difference is how a corpse will look after the event - something that would be little consolation to me.

It becomes even more difficult because cyclists have been banned from the major highway around here, too, simply because so-called "advocates" said things like, "oh we don't want to ride there." Well if they don't want to ride there they shouldn't, but don't try to tell the rest of us we can't, thankyouverymuch!

Believe me, I am thankful you didn't get hit. However, the fear itself is a big factor here. Tell me, what sort of shoulder did this road have? If you were using a wide shoulder, you were probably less likely to get hit than on most other roads. I know there's a certain "intimidation factor" with large vehicles and large volumes of vehicles, but in truth that's really all it is.

I actually take issue with this whole "Get hit and die" thing. Every statistic I've ever seen suggests that riding on the road is, overall, pretty safe. In fact, it's generally 3-5 times safer than using a bike path. As I said before, the solution lies in improving the existing roads. There simply isn't anywhere to build a second transport infrastructure unless we're prepared to accept a greatly inferior one.

To build a second facility that fails basic safety standards (as most bike paths do), will never be maintained adequately (as few bike paths ever are) and won't satisfy a cyclists basic transport needs (as few paths ever do) is not going to solve the problem. Sure, it might prevent cyclists being hit by cars, but that will only be because they cyclists simply aren't there anymore.

Every activity carries a certain amount of inherent risk (including driving, being a couch potato etc). Fact is, cycling on the road is an activity that carries much less risk than much of the hype suggests. If conditions were as dangerous as many people out here seem to think they are, I would be dead and not posting this right now. Nobody can ever give assurances that people aren't going to die in anything. As I said earlier, I stick to roadways because I find them safer than paths, simply because they are constructed and designed to a higher standard virtually all the time. I believe I'm less likely to die there.

As far as a realistic approach goes, the problem I see with bike paths as a whole is that they tend to be a "band-aid" solution. It is just a short-term thing, but when the path needs maintenance, who's going to perform it? Ultimately they tend to be built so that governments can claim to be "interested in safety" without ever confronting the real issues such as accommodation of cyclists on the road or driver attitudes. While ever cycling advocates put up with this and don't stop to say "hang on, what about the larger issues?" this isn't going to change.

Guest

This suggests nothing. You were the one who suggested that truck drivers considered some of the best drivers, when actually, they are not. I countered your point with my assertion that HERE, they are not considered the best drivers, but if they are in your country, then you guys are some lucky ducks.



I'm not sure what you mean by "advocates" and why these advocates wouldn't want to ride on your highways. I am also not sure what the political climate is for your country, so I have no comment about that.



Fear is not a factor for me. When I was in Greece, everyone advised me NOT to get on the Autostrada because the drivers were crazy, but I had to be realistic- to get back to Patras, it was the only way out. I thought people were overexaggerating the issue, but as I rode along, it quickly became apparent that Greek traffic is as dangerous as the people warned me, as I encountered many near misses, angry drivers, etc. while riding my bike. If you'd been on an autostrade before, you'd know that unless you are going to be headed towards the town that is in the direction of the shoulder of the road, you cannot ride on the shoulder. Let me give an example to emphasize my point (I take it you didn't read this part of my travelogue, so I am summarizing it)- when I left Athens, the only way out was on the autostrade. To get back to Patras, which was due west, I would have to get to the slower highway, which ran (basically) along the ocean. To get to that highway, you had to get on the autostade. When you got on the autostrade, you had to stay in the lanes for the city you were headed towards. To the right, those lanes were assigned to cars headed for Mt. Olympus. Straight ahead the middle lanes (my lanes) were assigned for cars going to Corinth (which would eventually lead to Patras). To my left, there was another set of lanes headed to yet another location. So imagine the autostrade, where there's NO MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT, with at least 3 lanes on my right that I cannot enter because those lanes are not going to my destination. I cannot just stay on the shoulder and ride the shoulder because I don't know when those lanes will bifurcate away from the highway- if I had, and the lanes peeled off in the wrong direction, I would have to had merged over 3 lanes in a short amount of time- attempting to merge with many, many, many cars driving with no maximum speed limit before the lanes completely departed the autostrade. There's absolutely no way to ride the shoulder. You are simply stuck riding in the middle of traffic, and you are hoping that someone doesn't come up from behind and hit you. And you have to stick with the lanes that will take you where you are going. It is too difficult to try and merge over three lanes in a short amount of time. This is not intimidation- this is self-preservation.



You assume here that the trails and paths will be inferior to roads, but I take exception to this- the miles and miles of bike trails Illinois has (for example) are MUCH better maintained than the roads around Chicago. My teeth are rattling half the time I'm out on the road riding to the right, whereas the trails are often smooth and well-paved. I've never seen any of the trails littered, but I've seen broken glass, nails, and other sharp objects lying in the streets on a regular basis. I get more flats from riding in the streets than riding on a bike trail. AND I enjoy that I can ride for longer stretches without having to stop at every light as I do when I ride in the streets. Does that mean I think we should have all trails? No. I feel comfortable riding on the streets or on the trails. But if they decide they want to build trails along the highways, I'll ride the trails, provided that they don't allow pedestrians, dogs, rollerbladers, joggers, etc. on the trail, and provided that it's not so congested that I can't get any kind of training in. I give a big thumbs up to Salt Lake City for recognizing that the highways are not safe, people are not responsible drivers, and there are cyclists out there that have a need for a safe manner to travel back and forth. We could wait 10 years to get the education and force every cyclist to ride city streets and waste twice the time to get to point B, or we can do something about it now and continue to work on the problem as much as possible.

I don't know which bike paths you are referring to that fail basic safety standards (perhaps some examples would help me to understand your position better). And can you list what those basic safety standards are so I can have a better understanding of wht they are so I can understand your position better? Thanks.

As far as basic maintenance, it's up to the cities to maintain their own paths. Again, I don't know what's up in your country, but I'm inferring from your posts that you have terrible bike paths that are unsafe and cannot pass basic safety standards, and are in terrible condition, and no one will take responsibility for doing basic maintenance for the trails. In the state of Illinois, it is up to the cities to maintain their trails- and the cities rely on the cyclists to report any problems to them so they can come and do necessary repairs. In addition, city officials do come out and inspect the trails, and if they see problems, they fix it. Right now, the north part of the bike path for the Chicago lakefront is under construction in preparation for the summer (about the last 2 and a half miles), as well as the south part of the bike path (about the last 2 and a half miles). They also did some maintenance in spots around the bike path. Each city does a very good job on maintaining their paths. I don't know how other paths are maintained in other parts of the country, but I'd be interested in hearing about other people's experiences with their own bike paths. Maybe there's something I'm missing- I don't know the state of repair (or disrepair) of other places, so I can't comment.
Final thought- we will just agree to disagree for now, Chris.


P.S. No comment on me sending you that plane ticket either? Ok.... if I ever get it together, you're here, AND you're workin' it off, babe! And for the record, don't you ever sleep, or do you just wait around for me to post? Sheesh!


Koffee

hayneda

I have to agree with ChrisL here. Traffic density has little to do with safety. Certainly, low traffic density makes for a more pleasant cycling route. But it does not necessarily mean it's a safer route for cyclists. Oftimes, I find that higher traffic densities actually make things safer since that usually slows down traffic speeds. It also forces drivers to pay greater and better attention to the task at hand, lest they get crushed! But I've often observed the lone driver on a country road that was fooling with the radio, or looking off to the side at something or other.

I certainly believe that I am far less likely to be hit on my commute during rush hour, than on my Saturday ride in the country.

Dave

Chris L

In this case, they are usually cyclists who prefer to ride in places other than the highways for one reason or another - I won't pontificate on the possible reasons, it's their decision - not mine. What bugs me is that they then try to say that nobody else should be allowed to either purely on the basis that they don't want to, then claim to be interested in "safety", to that I ask, whose safety exactly?

That's funny, it seems to be the exact opposite to what happens here. Sure, we have traffic lights, too, but they usually aren't anywhere near the delay that you get from peds, dogs, obstacles etc etc on the "shared paths" that so many people seem determined to build. Not to mention all of the "cyclists shall dismount to cross road" signs. Excuse me, but I don't want to have to get off and walk my bike every 40 metres or so.

Another thing I've noticed about these paths is that they go absolutely nowhere. I've lost count of the number that just dead-end for no apparent reason in the middle of nowhere. One particular one goes for about five metres, then heads straight into a creek. Not surprisingly, I use the nearby Pacific Highway, which, in spite of it's bad reputation, at least provides the basic courtesy of a bridge.

I'm sure these paths are great for recreational riders and people who don't particularly want to go anywhere. However, as a transportational cyclist, as someone who actually needs to get to work on time, I simply don't have the time to negotiate the issues I describe above.

Now, if someone can build a path that doesn't have all these problems, one that's actually a better option than the road (in terms of both safety and convenience), then I'll listen. However I still say that it's just easier (and to be honest, more likely) to just improve the roads we have now and make those safer for cyclists.

And what happens when they do become clogged with dogs, peds etc? Now it's my turn to relate an experience you have never seen - tourist season on the Gold Coast. Designate the path as a specific bike path? Forget it. Peds will use it anyway. They tried that one here a few years back, in the end they gave up and just used "cyclists shall give way to pedestrians" signs. Surprisingly I continue to use the road in that stretch.

This was more of a notional issue. I don't have time to physically count every poor path in this area, nor am I conversant with the specifics of the legislation. All I do know is that any wheelchair facility designed that poorly would be a walking lawsuit - even in this country. As I said before, bikepaths have a very poor record for cyclist safety (although I've also seen stats from America that say the same thing).

Unfortuantely the same perception of danger that leads to these things being built in the first place effectively prevents any successful legal action by these cyclists.

It's the same level of responsibility here. However it very rarely happens. Seems that while councils are content to build new paths that go nowhere and solve nothing, there simply isn't room in their budgets to maintain existing paths. However, road shoulders do get maintained, so that's where I'll be. All those ribbon cutting ceremonies must be pretty expensive, huh?

I'd probably end up crossing "chicago" off the plane ticket and writing "Hobart" in it's place. Nothing personal, but this whole idea of cycling in Tasmania is fast becoming an obsession. One of the reasons for this is that down there the night time temperature actually drops enough to allow me to sleep. Can't always say the same up here.

You're right though, perhaps we should agree to disagree - this post took me 20 minutes to type!