I'm new to the forum but I always wondered why there hasn't been more of a push to provide real Roadways...not just painted paths on dangerous automobile roads...for bicyclist?

Is it because of the oil companies?

I believe if there was a system of elevated, safe roadways for bicycles both for urban and suburban longer distance travel, America would be....

1). Less dependent on oil
2). MUCH healthier

Actually believe it or not (at least here in Portland) it's because of cyclists. For years cycling groups kept fighting for bike lanes and saw any attempt to provide separated cycling paths or alternate routes as segregation and marginalization. It's only been fairly recently that bike boulevards and separated bikeways have been acceptable options.

Interesting. I wasn't aware of that.

I live in a metropolitan area where automobile drivers are probably the number one danger to bicyclists. We have bike lanes, but I would never trust to ride in them. It really wouldn't be a good or safe idea. People here don't use them. Instead they ride on the sidewalk...far safer.

I think there are just too many people texting and on the phone etc to trust them not to cross the painted bicycle lane lines.

I never really understood that concept...putting people on bicycles in the same path as motorists. Like Oil and Water, the two don't seem to mix.

Building anything above ground is going to be expensive and elevated bikeways would deprive us of the ability to hop on and off any trail wherever... I'm a big fan of separated faculties but I find regular old bike paths fine.

The costs of elevated facilities would draw such outrage at the 'misspending" of taxpayer dollars, there would likely be riots in the streets.

Well, probably not riots, but seeing as many people don't feel that bicyclists foot enough of the bill to justify painted lines on the side of the roadway, getting something actually worth money built to benefit a small segment of the population would be next to impossible.

Give it a few years and when most people are priced out of being able to drive cars, the streets will become defacto bike only facilities.

It's because the vast majority of taxpayers consider bikes toys at best, and would be incensed at the idea of public funding of "hobbies".

My town came out with a reasonable, cost-effective Bicycle master plan a couple of years ago. It provided for cycle lanes, signage, reconstruction of dangerous intersections, etc.

It never panned out because 99% of the public responses can be condensed down to "Only children ride bicycles. Why would we be spending all of this money to encourage them to be out on the road?"

It's because elevated bikeways seems like a moronic way to spend infrastructure money.

Well designed cycle tracks, sure. Elevated bikeways? No.

then bicyclists are not driving up the fuel costs, making it so the drivers can enjoy less increase at the pump (marginally), we make them go slower... saving them even more money; not sure why they are not grateful

Because they get choked with pedestrians and strollers in no time, making it necessary to get back on the road.

Bicycle Only Elevated Roadways

Funny you should ask. I peruse the Living Car Free Forum about every two weeks, and just this morning after reading your thread I came upon this thread on that forum, started May 3 and with 49 replies currently:

Could Almost Use Its Own Forum - Bicycle Path Alternative Architecture: Elevated:

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...cture-Elevated

It’s a good discussion, by a particulary interested group of BF subscribers.

Speaking of the nefarious self-interest of Big Oil, I recently read that John D. Rockefeller was an ardent supporter of prohibition in the early 20th century. At that time the Model T was the dominant make of car, and it could run on alcohol as well as gasoline. So by prohibiting the manufacture of alcohol, under the guise of temperance, he could establish his product as the only fuel for the growing automobile market. An interesting story, but I only read it on the Internet on this website:

https://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com/

There's a growing number of bicycle roadways but many take advantage of existing infrastructure like old railroad beds:




There's a bridge that's connected to the same bikeway:



It cost $5,000,000 to build. Though most folks appreciate the artfullness of it, there's plenty of people who believe the 5 million could have been spent in better ways, even bike people. I use it every day. It's nice for getting across one busy highway but there were lights that allowed you to cross before. I end up just waiting at a different set of lights at a more dangerous crossing anyway.

Another offshoot of that same bikeway has recently been extended right past the back of my building. In fact the building had to give up a few feet of its tiny parking lot to accommodate it. Great for me though, right? Not really. It's fenced off. I have to ride a few blocks on streets to get on it.

That's a common problem with the bike infrastructure here. There's only so many access points. To get anywhere useful you need to be comfortable riding on the streets anyway. I imagine an elevated system would have the same problem.

Instead of thinking of all streets as "automobile roads", we as a culture need to start seeing them as multi-purpose roads, - not just for cars.

Not necessarily safer. Most cycling collisions occur at intersections, and even if you're on the sidewalk you still have to cross intersections. In fact sidewalk cycling may be more dangerous, because motorists at intersections and entering or exiting driveways may be less likely to notice you. Plus you may be endangering pedestrians.

Here in Toronto we had two sidewalk cyclists killed within days of each other a couple of years ago. I'll search for the link.

Riding on sidewalks is not only dangerous, it's against the law in almost all major cities. You risk hitting and injuring pedestrians. Bicycles are considered vehicles and belong on the roads or paths designated for bicycles.

If you are experiened and skilled in riding, being on the roads are safe. I ride along at 20 mph and generally keep up or ride at nearly the pacve of traffic. Ride in a straight line, look ahead to predict various events, give signals and warnings to traffic, and stay visable. Those are the basic rules.

Elevated? No. Ridiculously expensive for something that can be handled in other ways.

Here in MN, we're fortunate that there is a recognition that most non freeway needs either wide shoulders or some kind of bike friendly access, there are a lot of trails that interconnect all over the metro area. New bridges have bikeable paths across as well. It could be better, but it's working pretty well now.

Before we put in elevated stuff, I'd rather take that money and educate drivers and put more bike awareness into driver's ed programs in general.

J.

I can see that argument but at least you can see and avoid pedestrians. If a car isn't paying attention and swerves into you from behind, you have zero warning. Also if you are not that skilled yet, especially if there are hills, riding in the road might mean going well under 10mph which puts you in a dangerous position.

All depends on the safety of the situation IMO.. I don't think roads are always the de facto better choice. Although I agree if it's illegal then you should obey the law to the extent possible.

The budget for War, the Arms trade, and Nuclear power loan guarantees
bank bailouts, etc. rededicated

.. ought to cover the cost nicely..

The reason you are not allowed to ride on sidewalks is not about the cyclist, it's about the pedestrians. Pedestrians lose in bike-human collisions. Bikes belong on the roads or on bike paths.

J.

I feel that this is idealisticc and not realistic. The vast majority of people I see riding bicycles do NOT use the roadway (and for very good reason). It's dangerous.
If we could only do 3 small things ...this might float....

1). 100% ensure that not one single driver takes a drink or does drugs before getting behind the wheel.
2). Guarantee that noone uses a cellphone or any other distracting device while driving
3). Ensure that impaired drivers (even if by old age) are not behind the wheel.

If we can just do those 3 small things, it might be safe to ride a bicycle on the same road with motorists.
Otherwise, it is not safe.

Google this....
bicyclists killed by motorists

You don't need three things. It is just as realistic to simply create a force-field around riders to ensure their safety. IOW, there's no point to wishing for the impossible.

As I learn more about this...I'm beginning to realize that bicyclists fall into at least (maybe more) distinct categories.
1). The casual, Bermuda shorts wearing, sandals type bicyclist just enjoying his or her bike for the fun and exercise on his or her $80 bicycle
2). The avid, designer tights wearing, $800+ bicycle, super biker who prides himself in being able to pace with motor traffic.

I think I fall into the first category so maybe it's why I have a different perspective.
I think the safety of riding on the road varies greatly from location to location.
In South Florida, driving a bike on the roadway with motorists is a death wish bound to be full filled sooner than later.

Thank you. You reinforced my point and I appreciate it.

VERY well stated and hard to argue.

You can't believe that riding on the sidewalk is safer. Do you?

J.

Stan,
It's wonderful that you ride in an area with drivers who respect bicyclists.
I think most would agree those places are becoming farther and fewer in between.

I don't think my idea of bicycling matches yours.
To me, riding a bike is for pleasure and fun. I'm not a serious bicycle commuter.
On the sidewalks I probably average 12 mph. Hardly lethal.
I would probably achieve greater velocity involuntary with no extra effort in short order should I attempt to ride 12mph in the bike lane on the busy roads here..

Also, Pacing traffic is not possible in areas wher people are routinely driving 55 to 60 in 45 mph zones.
Are you able to maintain 55 mph on your bike? If so, kudos.

It is 1000% safer for me. My top speed is usually 12 mph. Not safe on roads where traffic is averaging 55 - 60 ( and there is a bike lane).

Does the National Transportation Safety Board publish figures on bicycle vs motorist accidents and fatalities ?

I would be humbled to learn that more bicycle vs motor vehicle accidents occurred when the bicycle was using the sidewalks.