skanking biker

No one is asking for that!!!!! And the guy in the bike lane sucks less than the guy in the Hummer.

I mean, its like you guys would rather have more people drive and clutter up the roads than have people engage in "transportational cycling" without exclusively using the roadways.

N_C

What a load of crap. How do you figure? Where's your proof? Any statistical data?

So by this logic you're telling me that in my community, which has I-29 going through it, 55 mph, 65 mph & 70 mph depending on where your at on it, with an average of 40,000 vehicles a day on it is safer & there is less of a chance for an accident to happen then on Myrtle St., 25 mph to 30 mph that maybe has an average of 500 vehicles a day on it?

I call bull **** on this one! For one I live here, you don't. I should & do know more about my community then you could ever hope to. So where in your little world does this happen?

Bekologist

this thread is shockingly obtuse. wow.

Some are stuck in an auto-centric dystopia.
Some recognize the value in redesign of public space to foster nonmotorized travel.

one hundred twenty years ago, conditions of the roads were poor for bicycling, and bicyclists demanded improvements.
One hundred twenty years later, conditions on the roods are poor for bicycling, and bicyclists demand improvments.

There are cities across the world that have vastly improved conditions for bicyclists, increasing bike use while decreasing indexed accident rates, and other cities see the value in redesign of public space to foster nonmotorized use of public rights of way.

and some are stuck with dated, auto-centric dystopian visions of public space, that will leave cycling in the dark ages of the 20th century.

SingingSabre 

Another day using bike lanes.

I had a close call...methinks it wouldn't have been close if I had taken the lane. Methinks, had I taken the lane, I wouldn't be posting right now.

Bruce Rosar

For me, another day cycling in 10'-14' wide marked lanes.

So you'd still be out on your bike instead of posting? BTW, did you see the videos?

SingingSabre 

Nope, I would have been in the hospital or morgue instead of posting!

I haven't seen the videos. I am comfortable controlling a lane when appropiate. The bike lane I was in is well placed and much needed. I'm not going to attempt to control a lane with people who regularly go at least 15mph over the 45 mph limit while on their way to work.

Not cyclist inferiority, just plain common sense.

One of the streets I ride to work requires me to take the lane. The speed limit is 35mph and the road is all uphill with no bike lane.

I use facilities when apropos, I take the lane when apropos.

Bruce Rosar

Personally, I'd rather have more people realize that the root cause isn't an engineering problem that is best solved with segregated facilities; it's a social problem that is best solved with leadership, education and (IMHO) encouragement.

Bruce Rosar

I cycle on roads like that, but with well placed (outer) 14' wide lanes. No segregation or lane control needed.

Have you read America's Taboo against Bicycle Driving?

Ah, common sense. That reminds me of a favorite quote:

RobertHurst

[...]


I'm interested in dealing with facts and I don't want to put words in your mouth. If what you meant was 'obeying the rules of the road reduces collisions' (which is not what you originally wrote), I don't regard that as particularly useful information for adult riders. Far more important and useful to consider is the principle that, even if every last cyclist magically started riding according to the vehicular rules at all times without exception, cyclists would still experience a lot of car-bike collisions.

It is recognized that the key to safe cycling is situational awareness, regardless of whether one follows the vehicular rules or not. This is not a suggestion that cyclists should disobey those rules, just a reality check.

Now back to our regularly scheduled endless loop.

Robert

I-Like-To-Bike

What's your point?

kalliergo 

What type or level of situational awareness could allow safe cycling on the roadway while not following the vehicular rules?

I-Like-To-Bike

One example would be for cyclists to observe and react appropriately (for safety and convenience) to the actual existing traffic at intersections, rather than placing faith in the safety provided by rote compliance with traffic control devices. Bicyclists will fare better by reasons of speed and efficiency, as well as safety and convenience.

Obsessive compulsive/strict compliance with vehicular rule type cyclists may "fare better" in their own mind by waiting for the light to change to green at deserted intersections, or by coming to full stops at stop signs at empty intersections.

galen_52657

It's not that at all in my feeble little mind. I just don't think painting bike lanes is going to make a meaningful difference in how many people drive or ride bikes. And it's a typical 'road to hell is paved with good intentions' scenario. The only thing that will meaningfully increase cycling for transportation are economic factors. Anybody remember the oil embargo of 1973? All of a sudden, bikes where everywhere.......maybe you weren't born yet....

galen_52657

How many is 'a lot' Robert? I ride thousands of miles a year and have for 20 years and have never been in a bike/car collision. I know a few people who have, but when you hear the story, 9 times out of 10 the cyclist was doing something not-to-smart: Blowing stop sign or signal, passing on the right, riding with ear-buds, riding at night with no lights...just the regular dumb stuff cyclists do all the time.

I-Like-To-Bike

All depends on whose stories and anecdotes you listen to for creating your "data" about bicycle safety.

SamHouston

Most club rides I've been on involve traveling from point A to point A, I've been on some that had destinations, usually a pub.

I-Like-To-Bike

And that's great. I assume your club members find their way from Pub A to Pub B and maybe even to Pub C and Pub D even if a temporary detour is involved due to road construction. Probably don't even carry on about infringed constitutional or vehicular cycling rights.

SamHouston

Less convenient & slower? You must acknowledge this as a personal assessment that you make with regard to your own ability to make transportational cycling the best travel option, as you cannot know from the information provided if this is the case for shbikes. It's a good thing that you differentiate between slower & less convenient, to fail would put you squarely in the ranks of "joe sixpack", something that you would find distasteful were one to judge by your writing style.

To add my own anecdotal assessment, were I or my wife to choose the "best" way to reach a local destination of 5-7 miles based on convenience or speed the bicycle would win out each time. Some routes would include long stretches of road equipped with bikelane although they aren't a prerequisite, or a consideration, for our travel needs.

It's also far more convenient for us not to own a car & have lots of extra money instead.

SamHouston

If construction were present on a recreational ride, I'd accommodate the construction, if it were present on a transportational journey, it would accommodate me unless all vehicles were prohibited. But I may be a whack job, I don't fancy club rides that stick to only 1-3 routes, it's safer & easier but also boring

I-Like-To-Bike

And if you had to ride on the other side of the Jersey barriers than the motorized traffic, or perhaps on an alternate adjacent parallel path due to the road construction, and perhaps even had to moderate your speed due to the temporary restrictions, would you consider that a prohibition? I assume you are not that wacky.

IMO, the issue of a relative handful of California Club Cyclists being required to adjust their recreational ride route along a section of the PCH during road construction was a tempest in a teapot, and has little to no significant relevance when discussing the rights of cyclists being infringed due to the construction of bike facilities.

sbhikes

NOT Parks and Recreation. County Roads. Whatever their real name is. Same folks who have to maintain the roads that are not within the city limits.

sbhikes

That is stupid and will only make sense once they open freeways for bicycles. Oh yeah. That's what a bikeway is.

sbhikes

As is bikeway riding, a freeway for bikes.

sbhikes

It is not less convenient and slower. It is more convenient and faster. I don't have any traffic signals and it leads almost to my place of business. If you had been shown the bikeway when you visited you might understand. It's a freeway for bicycles.

Do you go out of your way to take the freeway? Or did you take surface streets all the way when you drive?

sbhikes

Oh, so that's what's happening. That makes sense because logic and common sense aren't working for these fools.