MUPs?

I'm guessing: combined ped/cyclist paths (Multi-Use or something like that)?

I am a utility and commuter cyclist myself. So I am not riding an expensive, light road frame with 2-spoke wheels and thin tyres. My speeds tend to be moderate at best. But still, I don't understand how riding on a separate path would "seriously damage" your bike? At least here the paths are pretty much sealed. For gravel paths, the surface is hard packed enough to provide reasonable handling.

--J

The sand, dust and gravel all end up in the drivetrain, shortening the life of the parts.
It also slows me down by at least 20-30%. No fun at all.
Again, if using them was optional and voluntary, I wouldn't object at all.
But ignorant lawmakers have decided that when bike paths exist, all cyclists HAVE TO use them! That's my problem.

Hrm. Serge, perhaps I should have referred more to what seems to be the false dichotomy set up between VC and CS and less about whether or not they count as principles. Given that neither has, nor CAN have a clear definition (vs. a clear objective, which VC certainly has), I would still question calling them principles, but for lack of a better term, I'll go with it. The all-or-nothing mindset is one of the things that bothers me is the belief on either side that's got to be either one way or the other. I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle, although it is skewed significantly in favor of VC.

Certainly bike lanes, although often misguided, are at least an indication that even the "CS" folks want a place for bicycles on the street. It would be better if they realized that bicycles don't need to have that placed *created* for them - it already exists. But the desire to have bicycles on the road in any fashion gives me hope that perhaps it isn't too big a leap to convince them that the safest way for bicycles to operate on the street is to act as vehicles. Realistically, I know that it isn't that easy. After all, cycling is believed to be dangerous, and many see bike lanes as a concession, or at least a compromise: "fine, they can be on the road, but only if they're in their little lanes and I'm in mine."

Fortunately, as I said in my first post, not all bike lanes are horrible. The ones here in downtown Amherst are pretty decent, in fact. They are made even better by the fact that the paint is fading . The outside edge of the lane is out of the door zone, which is a nice touch, but dooring isn't exactly a big threat on North Pleasant St. in Amherst, MA! Besides, it's just the outside edge, not the whole thing. They also are correctly positioned to the left of the right turn lane at intersections, but I still prefer to take the lane at a stoplight. As long as I am not required to be in the lane whenever it is available, I am happy, but I worry that bike lanes encourage riders who are unskilled at riding in traffic to believe that they are safe in a bike lane. On the other hand, without the bike lane, a lot of these riders would end up on the sidewalk, which is even worse.

I mention this because I believe that you have said before that bicyclist education is the critical factor, not driver education. I agree, in the sense that it is bicyclists who should be instructed in the operation of their own vehicle (drivers do need plenty of education in other matters, IMO, but that's another rant for another day ). I am just not sure how to go about this. LAB 1 classes are great and all that, but I don't think that it is reasonable to expect every cyclist to take a class. In order to become accepted and used by cyclists, VC somehow must become self-evident as the solution. I'm not sure how to make it so - do you have any ideas?

With regard to the visibility issue, I agree 100% that you are more visible when riding vehicularly than someone who isn't. I was merely pointing out that bike facilities might make cycling more visible in a hypothetical sense. I do not believe that this conveys any practical value or application, so there's probably no real point in discussing it any further .

By the way, I'm sure that others have mentioned this to you, but I believe that a lot of your opposition is a reaction to the stridency of VC advocates. It's impossible to make the argument that sidewalk riding is safer than VC, since the statistics show otherwise. There is no data that I am aware of that shows streets with bike lanes to be statistically safer than streets without, and the evidence suggests that it is MUCH easier to make a dangerous bike lane than a safe one. My point is that logic is on the side of VC, but folks are inclined to get defensive. Here they are doing something about a problem, and you're telling them that it's just a waste of time and money! It's difficult to get past something like that. That, and VC advocates are often, well, strident. I'm not sure what you're supposed to do with that. Yet another post full of helpful suggestions! There you have it.

MUP = multi-use path.

Aside from gravel MUPs, one of the concerns with bike lanes on streets is the fact that cars no longer sweep that section of pavement clean of debris, and all the junk and broken glass ends up in the bike lane, where it causes you to flat out way more often than when you ride VC.

I think you hit a point here. On weekdays I commute, run errands, etc. on bicycle. My purpose of riding is to get somewhere efficiently (time and effort) and safely. This is all done on roads and I get the job done. On weekends I just go for rides, I don't care if I have a 2mi detour or end up on a MUP or miss a turn because of traffic patterns or what have you, in fact I usuallly only have a general route in mind and may end up deviating from it and just going for a nice ride. But there is no way I could ride this way as transportation.

Al

Wow - I grew up in that area! I rode by bike all over the place, between all the nearby towns, Belchertown, Northhampton, to the Quabbin, even to longer trips to Greenfield, once to Brattleboro. Great memories. Anyway I don't recall any BLs at that time, I simply can't imagine where they would help, downtown traffic is relatively low speed, lots of students, etc. but a comfortable place to be on a bike. Maybe learning to ride without BLs (or even knowing what they were) just made riding more vehicularly a natural thing.

Al

There is the rail-trail from South Amherst to Noho thru Hadley along rt 9 and across the Connecticut via the rail bridge parallel to the Coolidge bridge. (where I learned to hate clueless rollerbladers with headphones) No need (or room) for bike lanes in those little towns. Ahhh, beautiful Amherst...

Why anyone would want to ride in a bike lane is beyone me. Traffic,exhaust,a-holes and all that crap. Separated,2 lane bike paths along parks,horse stables and along nothing is where i ride and it takes 2 miles through traffic to get to and i cant wait to get to it. I've got about 60 miles of it to use and thats just in my area.

Maybe because many of us actually ride to get somewhere? How many grocery stores, workplaces, resturants are along that 60mi stretch?

Al

noisebeam - that's the thing that puzzles me most. Who decided that the bikes lanes were necessary? They're fairly well-made, and thus basically harmless, but they are also pointless. It's possible that there was an accident which caused clamoring for lanes, but of course the bike lanes aren't going to help prevent accidents. The ones on North Pleasant St. aren't the ones that bother me, though. Do you remember the intersection of route 9 and 116 right after the common, just before Amherst College? When you cross that intersection, heading in the direction of Hampshire College, a bike lane appears on the right. It continues for 100 feet, and then ends. It's a mystery.

bkrownd, that's the Norwottuck trail, and it's pretty good. The only real problem are the number of roots beneath the pavement in places. It's annoying on a bike - those rollerbladers must have a heck of a time. Because the snow is mostly gone I can start using it to get to work instead of route 9. Unfortunately, some damn fool decided to create the "UMass bikeway connector," which runs from the corner of Mass ave and University drive out to the trail. This is like a normal MUP, but it's on the sidewalk. Yes, the sidewalk of University Drive is a MUP! It's atrocious, and there's plenty of ped traffic, too. I would ride in the street, but the road surface is horrible. Absolutely shameful.

For the most part, though, it really is a beautiful area to ride a bike. People are very respectful, and riding VC on Route 9 really works. Must be all my fellow crazy tree-hugging liberal types . Spring is here, spring is here! Maybe take my own trip up to Brattleboro, I've got some friends up there .

As many as you need. There is a off ramp from the path to every street. And just as many ride to ride,not poop along the streets. Hey,there is a need for both,i just hate being around cars as much as they hate being around me. Me,i dont ride to the store or even stop on a ride. Anyways,most places dont have a place to put your bike and if its nice,its gone,at least around here.

I think you misunderstood. I mostly cycle to get places, run errands, etc. That means I ride from home to grocery, from home to work, from home to hardware store, to coffee shop, to resturaunts. While there may be businesses and homes along a path, only if you are lucky are they your home, your workplace and your favorite resturaunts. Of course there is a place for recreational/fitness riding on paths, but the problem I have is that every non-cycling-friendly driver will start to expect, demand cyclists to use the paths, especially as more are built - but they make cycling a less practical and less safe form of tranportation as fewer cyclists on the streets is does not make cycling safer.

Al

i ride in an area with good bike lanes and it works well when i am in them, but when they disappear and i ride VC i tend to incur the wrath of some drivers. most are respectful and courteous, but the number of angry drive as close as they can to me drivers is significant. i should add that i am very visible and ride slightly left of center so there is no way they can try to squeeze by me. they have to change lanes, but some don't want to completely leave their lane and choose to give me about a foot of clearance. i worry that if i rode vc all the time, even when there was a good bike lane, the level of wrathful drivers would increase to unbearable levels. when 80 yr. olds in cadalacs play the pass as close as i can game, it's only a matter of time before one gets me. if i was emporer i could design the ultimate system but i am just a poor guy going to work trying to stay alive. am i doing something wrong? some people just get really angry at bikes in the road.

Why are you riding left of center if it is safe for vehicles to pass? I think many VC riders will only ride to left of center thru intersections, if road on right side is a dangerous surface, if preparing to merge left, or if cars are parked on right side. But you can ride to the right of lane and let cars pass comfortably for normal conditions on intersectionless roads - they will be more likely to give 3ft of clearance in this case. No need to annoy drivers and make them merge further left than they should otherwise do.

Al

I don't agree, Serge, with your premise that VC and separation are different. Even from the tenets of VC seem to favor separation. One principle that VC teaches us is that you fare better when you behave in a way that motorists will expect. Most motorists expect you to separated from them. Therefore, you will fare better if you are separated from motorists.

Yes, I have the impression from you and several others, including Forester, and I don't feel the disclaimers negate that.


I've given Forester more attention than he deserves.

I snipped much of that to save space, and because I have a cold and don't feel like writing much. I maintain that this is precisely the attitude I have seen from you, Bruce, Forester, and others to various degrees. I see all vehicles as different (and all operators of such vehicles as different as well) hence my support for special-use lanes and many other facilities.

If you agree that bikes are not equivalent to cars, then you can not say that:

- cyclists can always negotiate traffic, in all conditions on all roads
- all roads are appropriate for use by all cyclists
- bike facilities are not needed at any time by anyone
- there is no need to give bikes special consideration when designing any roads

Further, if you do indeed agree with the above, then you should also agree that:

- the separation created by bike lanes and pathways is needed by some cyclist, some of the time
- bike facilities such as bike lanes are needed in some places/times for at least some people
- we need to give bikes and cyclists special consideration, as we do other vehicles and users


So Serge, despite your anti bike-lane views, your claims of segregation, etc. do you now agree with me that bike lanes and/or other similar facilities are needed, and that merely riding vesicularly on "standard" roads (ie. no bike allowanced made) will not meet the needs of all cyclists?

I am well aware that in some conditions mixing traffic works well (even taken to the extreme of removing all traffic separation, as the Dutch are trying). In other situations this is impossible, eg. Ontario 400 series highways with a posted minimum speed limit of 60km/h. In that case the only options a complete ban on bikes, or special accommodations. Are you advocating a ban on bikes?


(Crap, this is a long message after all. )

when i ride to the right of the lane, cars usually pass me with out changing lanes. there is barely enough room for this, and every passing car is very close. trucks and trailers are near collisions at best. when i ride in the center, they can't squeeze by. they have to merge left, and to me, it doesn't matter if they have to merge left all the way or half way. they can if there isn't a car to the left and they can't if there is. these roads are two or three lanes in each direction. riding in the center (when i say slightly left of center i mean 6-12 inches left of exact center) is my understanding of what "taking a lane" and VC is.

Uh, I disagree with that statement... when I first started posting, I told you I was a VC rider... then you went through the drill of testing my knowledge, and making me prove what a WOL was and various other Serge "tests." At that time I will admit I did not have the strict knowledge of MUTCD and all of CVC et. al.

Long ago I told you that I would not have this many miles on my legs without being a VC rider... and I would challange you to find any long time rider who did not learn "VC" the hard way... just as Forester mentions. It is a way of life.

My "constant objections" are not to VC riding, but to "EC evangalism" and to the removal of bike lanes...

That indeed is a strong indication that you are riding too far to the right. But moving all the way to the center, much less left of center, seems like over compensation to me.


"Taking the lane" simply means riding in a position that prevents motorists from being able to squeeze into the lane with you. Generally, that means riding between the virtual left and right tire tracks of normal motor traffic in the lane.

But like Al pointed out, there is no need to ride further left than necessary, especially left of center. Why not ride just left of the right tire track, a couple feet RIGHT of center?
I could see why riding any further left could appear to be unnecessary and aggravating to motorists...

Pat, thanks for a reasonable view of the real world. I find it refreshing to see that others too can encompass a wide range of the variables of the real world without resorting to extreme dichromatic views.

Thanks. I'll quit while I'm ahead.

After a bad experience on my last commute, there is one spot where I definitely will be taking the center of the entire lane. The truck I had a problem with had trouble with other cars also, so it wasn't just me on the bike, but I'm not giving them the chance to squeeze me off like he did for that 40 yards that I ended up between two lanes of moving traffic.

thanks serge and al. i will give it a try.

Uh....riding in the street on route 9??? I hope you mean in downtown Noho, and not all the way through Hadley. University Avenue to the railtrail? Yuck. I'd take the loop around the football stadium, cross over the highway on the quiet little bridge just south of it and take the beautiful back-roads of Hadley to get on the trail near Hadley common. Hadley's backroads are so nice.

Amherst is where I learned to love living without a car. Just 6 months until my annual Amherst vacation - the highlight of my year.