adablduya

the individual responses here to segments of my post are seriously lame attempts to be argumentative, and none of them make an intelligent point related to my statements.

contango 

Paying for services that someone else uses is just one inherent aspect of taxation. I cannot use the primary schools my taxes fund, nor can I use the welfare system that my taxes fund.

so the question then is, why are things left half-done? Either provide bike facilities worthy of the name or don't bother. Providing a strip at the roadside covered in gravel and full of potholes and painting a bicycle on it is worse than doing nothing.

If a bike lane is going to be at the edge of the road it's inevitable it will start to break up before the road as a whole does. So either it needs to be kept in good repair or abandoned with the associated acceptance that cyclists will ride on the main part of the road. In my home town I see a few places where bike lanes have been installed by people who clearly don't ride bikes, which is just a waste of money (one near my home where a bike lane weaves around a couple of trees, then spits cyclists back into the road right before a major roundabout and about 50 yards before another bike lane leads them off the road; another near my home has a bike lane along the side of a road which disappears on the approach to traffic islands, in other words when bikes need a little space from cars their designated bike lane vanishes.

Going back to the example of schools and welfare and stuff, it would be like building a primary school in a retirement community and employing an army of pen pushers to administer a welfare benefit that nobody was entitled to receive.

This goes back to my previous point that it's better to not do something at all than to half-do it. Logistics of ensuring compliance with bike charging aside, I don't inherently have a problem with paying for a service that is useful. I do have a problem with being expected to pay for something, then legally required to use it, when that something is unsuited to the purpose.

Why should anybody be paying for an unwanted bicycle lane? If nobody wants it, why is it being built in the first place? If taxation is used to provide roads for cars to drive on regardless of how much each individual driver has paid in taxes, why shouldn't the same taxation be used to provide facilities for cyclists? Cyclists may not pay fuel tax or vehicle registration fees but I never noticed an exemption from income taxes for people who cycle rather than using cars.

contango 

Honestly, I think a lot of the problem is that a lot of officials want to pay lip service to projects to garner votes while actually doing as little as possible. Doing something properly costs money, doing half a job costs less money and then the officials can point to the fact nobody uses the half-hearted measures as an excuse for discontinuing them.

Providing decent facilities for cyclists may mean widening a road, providing a segregated area for people to cycle safely, and so on. It's much cheaper to paint a white line on the road and a picture of a bike every 100 yards or so. Then they can tick the box saying they've made provision for cyclists and move on.

It's hard to see why any cyclist would vote against the introduction of provisions for cyclists, although if I were asked about "provision for cyclists" I'd assume it meant provision of a useful facility rather than slapping a bit of paint on the road and expecting me to ride among the debris.

contango 

On Blackfriars Bridge in central London there is a bike lane that runs between two traffic lanes. Which is all well and good in theory because the lanes split on the north side of the bridge, but it's a bit of a pain for cyclists given how traffic needs to cross the bike lane in order to change lanes.

Elsewhere on a major road (with a 70mph limit but where cyclists are permitted to ride) the signage is very good, instructing cyclists to leave the road on the slip road, cross when clear and rejoin the main road, then cross the slip road when clear and rejoin the main road along the slip road. Instantly the cyclist is protected from cars looking to join or leave the main road at speed, albeit at the cost of some convenience. Personally I don't understand why any cyclist would want to ride on that road, but for those that do provision is there.

Digital_Cowboy

+100

Well said, plus as I said it allows those politicians the ability to have yet another photo op.

hotbike

I feel the need to update you on the Blackfriars Bridge Bike Lane. It seems that Transport for London wants to axe the bike lane on that bridge:

https://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/tfl...cull-bike-lane

contango 

Interesting article, thanks for the link. I'm surprised that removing the bike lane from between two lanes would "endanger cyclists", for myself I wouldn't want to use a lane between two lanes when buses and cars had to pass through the bike lane to change lanes.

I've cycled over several of the bridges across the Thames and generally don't feel overly exposed doing so. A lot of them have segregated bike paths and even when I've missed the paths I've usually found I can hold my own with the traffic.

B. Carfree

If you would kindly refrain from operating your car on any roads that are not owned/maintained by the state and federal governments, then you would have a consistent case. The problem is, most of the road building and maintenance in OR is done by county and city jurisdictions. The cities and counties fund this road work with property taxes, including extra assessments for this purpose like we have in Eugene, a smattering of income taxes and federal timber payments. On these roads, it is the cyclists who are subsidizing the motorists, not the other way round. Knock yourself out on the interstates and the portions of the state highways that are state-controlled, because those are the only places where the ODOT budget is relevant. Check into your city and county budgets to see where the money for most of the asphalt you use is coming from.

On the larger argument of the shoulder/bike lane: If that narrow shoulder, which should not be marked as a bike lane since it is of substandard width, is not a bike lane (very likely), do you know the legal passing distance you MUST give the cyclists in order to pass? ORS 811.065 says you must give them room to fall in your direction. That means, even if they ride on the shoulder you would not be able to LEGALLY pass them until there was no oncoming traffic anyway (unless your car is uniquely narrow). Their lane position was not what was slowing you down, those pesky laws (that you insist everyone should follow to the letter) are what kept you from passing.

Fun thread everyone. I really appreciated the restraint, politeness and perseverance showed by Kinst_ while he played the antagonist.

hotbike

Thank you all for the 133 replies to my post. I did not expect so many replies.

I will stand by my claim that only 1 out of 10,000 drivers gives me any trouble.

However, I will issue the following disclaimer(s):

1) I stay as far right as possible , and If I do take the lane, I stop and wait until there are no cars coming.

2) I ride slow and I have white panniers, like a Touring Bicycle. I don't try to be a Racer, or to approach the speed limit.

3) I always yield to trucks and buses.

4) I wear a reflective vest, have two or three rear facing blinkies, and I carry a red flag to emphasize my hand signals when needed.

5) I do most of my riding on city, village, and county roads, and I stay off of state and federal roads.

Again, I titled this thread "Conflicts are Rare" because I wanted to make the statement that very few motorists are actively looking for trouble.

alicestrong

I'm right there with you. But I think my being a female and a certain age helps, too.

Profgumby

Conflicts are indeed rare...but it takes only one conflict to have a dead bicycle rider...

dougmc

Perhaps true, but that's the sort of attitude that makes you stay home and die of bedsores.

Life is a gamble. The wise person balances the risks with the rewards rather than getting all tied up by the unlikely worst case scenarios.

genec

Conflicts may be rare, but when they occur, often the cyclist gets the raw deal...

Except in this case...

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...f-Off-Duty-Cop

B. Carfree

Acknowledging a risk is not the same as being immobilized by it. When I participated in AAU Tae Kwon Do tournaments I was aware of the risks. In fact, that awareness probably allowed me to keep my head intact. I think that one is better able to avoid the worst outcomes if one knows how they come about. YMMV.

genec

There are risks and there are situations... they are different. There are risks in cycling, and cycling in traffic has more risks... these can be understood and mitigated. Then there are "situations..." the latter which arise not due to any design, or law or physical difference in vehicle, but merely due to ego, and in some cases malice. These situations are fully artificial and often are illegal in nature, along with being pretty much unpredictable.

Profgumby

Ha ha! Die of bedsores, Not me!

My response probably should have had more detail. But short, cliff notes version is it only takes one conflict to end up on the short end of the stick if your a cyclist. That being said, I do everything I can to avoid being on that short end...much of what has been said here already. Bright clothes, yield to others etc...

Profgumby

Well said!

adablduya

[QUOTE=Kinst_VonSterga;12396888] "But drivers who pay for paved bike paths (or paved shoulders) through gas taxes, car registration fees, etc. can not use this benefit with their cars ... and it's definitely not used by the majority of the cyclists who have responded/posted to this thread/topic so far. " /QUOTE]


it's my opinion that the vast majority of cyclists out there are also owners and drivers of motor vehicles, which means that they pay gas taxes, car registrations fees, etc. that are part of the pool of money that goes for bike lane development/maintenance. so, true, drivers that don't cycle don't benefit from the bike paths, no different than a resident who pays school taxes and gains no benefit if he has no kids using the schools. who's to say that bike lanes / improved shoulders are or are not used by the majority of cyclists ? purely subjective and unsubstantiated statement on your part.

Kinst_VonSterga

Yep! Most rants contain subjective and unsubstantiated comments, so you make a very keen, astute and common observation. Since I fall trap to the same behavioral reactions that BF Skinner would assert is in my human nature to express, believe me when I tell you that I don't worry or grizzle about it if/when it occurs.

In regards to the formation of opinions, which I've laid it out for everyone to pounce on over the course of this exchange, they have definitely morphed since my original post. If there are individuals who want to go back to my earlier comments and continue responding to them as if they're brand new thoughts/ideas, then go for it, as it's your prerogative and use of time. Unfortunately for those individuals, I won't be responding/defending any position that has changed.

Cheers.

AlmostTrick

I'm waiting for your new thread... This one's done played out.