JohnBrooking

Diane, it's great that no one in Santa Barbara has any desire to confine bikes to the paths. But that doesn't sound like the intention of the the guy who wrote the article that Brian referred to.

ckellingc

I disagree with the "separate bike paths". Here in St. Joe, we built some, but they were immediately claimed for old ladies walking dogs. They get pretty ticked off when I ride on the path, even though the sign clearly has a bicycle on it. I tried using "bike paths" but they are just too busy.

Then again, that might just be here.

sbhikes

Just don't make blanket statements like "you know how it goes with those bike paths" because as soon as you do, someone can tell you that it's not how it goes.

Please read Chip's post. It's time to get beyond the silly arguments. There are all kinds of facilities for bicycles. There are only going to be more of them. You may as well learn how to use them safely. And there's nothing saying that the presence of some kinds of bike facilities means that that's all you get to use. You can advocate to use everything without having to deny any one kind of facility.

If you dare.

noisebeam

Many cities don't track % of trips. I do know that Tempe, AZ boasts 4% of non student commuters use bicycle. I also know that fewer trips are made by bicycle here that many other cities - that is the bicycle presence away from dense student areas is masked by auto presence.
Al

Ekdog

I disagree with those naysayers who argue that we shouldn't build bike paths because it would lead to the prohibition of cyclists circulating on streets and roads.

That certainly has not been the case in cities like Amsterdam and Bogota, where there are extensive networks of bike paths; nor has there been talk of such a prohibition here in Seville, where a network is presently being built.

The first lanes have already opened here, and the rest are due to be finished by summer. What a pleasure it is to ride without fighting traffic!

I urge you to pressure your local politicians to build bike paths in your cities. You won't regret it.

Regards,

Ek

Roody

You will not get any proof of causation because none is possible. The association between bike facilities and ridership is correlational (if it even exists). It's a logical fallacy to state that one causes the other. Here are the logical possibilities, each equally unprovable:

1. Bike facilities cause or contribute to greater ridership.
2. Greater ridership results in more lobbying power, causing or contributing to an increase in bike facilities.
3. The correlation between bike lanes and ridership is attributable to other factors, known or unknown.

Just thought you might like to know, before you spend too much effort proving the unprovable.

Roody

Well, Brian...if that's your real name....

It is hard to keep up with the changes, and Brian is a rather nondescript nom-de-plume. I have usually enjoyed your posts in the past, but I have to agree with randya on this one. It seems inflammatory and unduly personal for a mod, even if it does fall within the forum guidelines. But after all, if you're the head moderator, you get to interpret the guidelines. so your OP must be an example of what you want to see on this forum. How disappointing....

genec

I accept this challenge. I believe cyclists and motor cars can exist together... as long as the motorists in those cars are not trying to treat each road like an expressway or an Indy racetrack. The answer is simple. Slow the cars down. Reduce the speed limits on surface streets and enforce it. Think of the revenue gain for cash strapped cities like San Diego.

If motorists want and "need" to go fast, they should use the freeways. Surface streets should not have freeway speeds. That is the wrong approach.

There, it's that simple.