What a jerk!

Why do the anti-facilities people use facilities even when they are against them? They all use them, with the possible exception maybe of Al. What is it they really want?

Hmmm, anecdotally writing, I think that you are right on that. In other words, if there is a bike lane on the ground, my experience is the motorists expect bicyclists to stay in the lane unless

(1) you are making a left

(2) there is an obvious obstruction ... after which there is an expectation that the cyclist will return to the lane

(3) you are going very fast.

-G

galen, I ride that street daily. I am not incorrect in my assertions about bike infrastructure and Dexter Ave in Seattle, and curbhuggers on unstriped roads.

Adequately frequent street sweeping is quite a bit more expensive over the lifetime of thermoplastic pavement markings. This cost should be included in any estimate of the cost of providing striped bike lanes. If frequent street sweeping is not included in the budget, then debris accumulation will degrade the operational performance of the roadway for cyclists compared to the same pavement width without the stripe.

"Well designed" and "well-maintained" bike lanes are significantly more expensive than substandard-design, poorly maintained bike lanes. This is why so many communities looking to provide bikeways as cheaply as possible provide poorly designed, poorly maintained bike lanes that many readers here dislike compared to the same pavement width unstriped. Bicycling advocates need to stay aware of this problem.

I prefer sharrow markings if curbhugging is a problem on ordinary urban roads.

Did he ride on a well-designed, useful bike path in its own right of way, or on a sidewalk-type path, use of which would be contrary to normal vehicular rules?

Did he criticize bicycle facilities that are consistent with normal vehicular rules and best bicycling practices (staying out of door zone and debris, defensive driving and proper destination positioning, etc.) or did he aim his major complaints at poorly-designed bikeways that conflict with normal vehicular rules and marginalize cyclists on the roadway?

My point is that pro/anti facilities is a false dichotomy. Most vehicular cycling supporters support facilities improvements that are consistent with the traffic negotiation principles of vehicular cycling, e.g. rules for drivers, and reserve their opposition for those facilities that conflict with these traffic negotiation principles. Attempting to cast most vehicular cycling supporters as anti-facilities and anti-bicycling is dishonest.

So you are saying the local cyclists are smart enough to figure out it is safest to straddle the bike lane stripe so as not to ride in a door zone in a marked bike lane but to dumb not to figure out that hugging the curb on an unmarked road is unsafe? Somehow, I find that very difficult to believe.........

I think that this is a good point. Here in DC, snow and leaf removal as well as regular debris are constant issues with bike lanes and MUPs.

I saw a street sweeper today. It's not impossible. You just have to ask these jokers you elected what the heck are they doing with your money?

Another good point.

I suspect they'll say they spent it on bike paths, striping, bike maps, bike parking, etc. Seriously, if you don't reserve the money for increased street sweeping when you plan the bike lane installations, the sweeping won't happen.

The only street sweepers I've ever seen near me are used for cleaning up the neighborhood streets after new construction. I have never seen a sweeper cleaning a bike lane or road shoulder and have never seen any sign that these sweepers are being used when I'm not in the area.

What they are doing with my money, in terms of transportation, is providing well paved roads that offer convenient connectivity to everywhere I could possibly want to go. Once you accept that the road system is there for you to use just like everybody else, there is no longer any need for special facilities. If completely seperate facilities are created that only cyclists can use to get away from everyone else, they are perks and it's great if you can make use of them. They aren't necessary and no one owes it to you to create them.

invisiblehand


I am not terribly familiar with their history, but I understand that many of these laws were passed during a period of low bicycle usage in the US. From what I gather from Forester's articles/books, there was (? is ?) also a period of misinformation, whereby legislation was passed for our own good.

If you accept those two things, it is easy to see how a lot of crazy laws could be passed.

Since one aspect of the Division as I understand it is whether cycling advocacy should include outreach and increasing ridership ...

Has anyone ever determined the relationship between bicycle usage and legislation that limits that usage? Thinking abstractly, I do not see a clear relationship between the two. Suppose cyclists compose a small minority of road users and then cycling usage increases. One might think that since the political base of cyclists increase, legislation that is more favorable to cyclists should pass too. However, it could be the case that with more cyclists on the road, cyclists become more of an irritant to the majority auto drivers. Consequently, legislation less favorable to cyclists is enacted.

My guess is that in the US where individual rights seem to have a higher degree of protection than other Western countries, one is probably better off increasing the political base of cyclists.


I am responding to both Invisible Hand and Steve Goodridge.

The mandatory sidepath law (bike lanes hadn't yet been invented) got into the Uniform Vehicle Code in 1944. The UVC committee normally does not accept new "rules" unless they had been tried out in some localities, so I presume that such laws existed somewhere in the USA during the 1930s. By 1976, 38 states had mandatory sidepath laws. British cyclists fought off a mandatory sidepath law in 1937. 1944 was not a time of low bicycle use; the Great Depression had reinvigorated the League of American Wheelmen and made cycle touring respectable (American Youth Hostels system), and the war had produced great need to commute to new jobs in new places while at the same time prohibiting auto manufacture and restricting auto use. Victory bikes were essentially Schwinn middleweights. The time of really low bicycling was in the 1950s, when nice new cars again became available, suburbs were being developed, and anyone who still cycled was thought to be unable to obtain a respectable job.

As a result of this low cycling volume, the motoring establishment ceased worrying about bicycle traffic and, essentially, just ignored cyclists. Although the mandatory sidepath laws were on the books, no money was spent on building sidepaths. It wasn't until the demographic upheavals of the later 1960s that the motoring establishment again became worried that bicycle traffic would "impact" its roads. Yes, that was the word, the same word used to describe constipation. As a result, in 1970-1, the California Legislature, in response to the urging of California motorists, revived the bikeways issue. California was one of the twelve states that had never adopted a mandatory sidepath law, and one of the motorists' objectives was to enact such a law and establish designs for sidepaths to force cyclists off the roadway.

Contrary to the suggestion that there was a time in which American society was ignorant of cycling and passed silly laws, there has never been any time, over all the period in which traffic laws existed, in which American society had a reasonable view of cycling. Motoring took over too rapidly for such to exist, contrary to European societies in which bicycle transportation was very significant for decades after the invention of the car. However, the prestige of bicycling did not always prevent the advent of mass motoring from changing the laws. As stated above, British cyclists fought off sidepath laws in 1937 and maintained freedom for decades, while Dutch cyclists failed when motoring came to the Netherlands some years after the end of WW 2.

We must have it good here. In many of the cities, the streets are swept once a week.

Our streets always seem pretty clean, but I rarely see any sweepers. They must go around when I'm not around.

:lol:

You can be a funny guy John.