[QUOTE=enipla]
I see maybe 5 people on the path in the morning on a ten mile stretch. And the same amount of bikes on the road.
Yep, I said it’s legal. It’s not always prudent.
[QUOTE]
Prudence is in the cyclists decision. There are often many reasons that multi-use trails next to raods are not used by cyclists. It is not for you to decide what the cyclist should or should not be using.
In some areas, cycling on interstates is permitted. 1/4 of the interstates in CA, for example. However, the reason cycles are not allowed on interstates has to do with the entry/exit ramp system. Even so, there’s still some quite a bit of complaining about that.
Sounds like the ‘attitude’ that you are complaining about is that the cyclists wish to be treated like any other vehicle, and not an element of society that must be segregated.
"These nouns refer to the exercise of good judgment, common sense, and even caution, especially in the conduct of practical matters"
. On a HIGHWAY, a bicycle not like any other vehicle.
When a special lane is set up for slow moving vehicles, they must use them. By law. What’s the difference between that and having bike paths?
When there are good safe alternatives, I think the bike riders are sometimes a bit arrogant.
I give bicycles every courtesy on the road. And for the most part, the bike riders are courteous as well. I understand why they run stop signs and lights, but I also think that when an alternative to a State Highway is available, and is as direct as the highway, it should be used.
Yawn. That’s nice. So since the act of riding in this road is so very unprudent, I would imagine that the bodies of cyclists must be piling up around there. So, just how cyclists have been killed there, since you make it out to be so very, very dangerous.
The term is subjective. To some, any bicycling in any streets is not ‘prudent’. I disagree.
Making left turns, for starters.
Again, “Good, safe” is in your judgement. It is hardly the final word. The cyclists have, for one reason or another, deemed that the trail is not adequate to their needs.
You seem to feel the need to judge for them for so-called ‘safety reasons’ that are thinly disguised excuses to get the bikes off the roads and out of the way of cars.
Running lights is a behavior I do not condone. (With very few exceptions).
Why I ride on sidewalks ,well there was a story from Alaska about a guy who was driving SUV or pick-up truck while watching movie on his DVD mounted in the middle console.The result of that he killed two people .DVD,cell phones ,audio systems what else they going to put inside ?
That moron could have just as easily driven onto a sidewalk. It was a worrying situation, but not one that I will consider to rule my life.
The facts are these: Bicyclists riding illegally (wrong side of the road, or on sidewalk) are the biggest cause of bike-car accidents. Cars turning right cannot see you and will slam into you. Furthermore, you risk hitting pedestrians, at the very least you generate ill will towards cyclists.
Don’t let fear create a large problem. Either bike on the road or don’t bike!
“Get over it” is just another way to say fuck you.
Very nice.
I support bike trails and public transportation.
This is just another instance of a bike rider that does not care about the real world. And an example of some of the arrogance that I see from some bike riders.
Why don’t you answer the question. You seem to imply that riding on this road is so insane that there must be mass fatalities of bikers, or at least a handful. Well, how many have died? How many injured?
I do not support bike trails. Its segregation, and severely curtails movement and speed.
What exactly is this ‘real world’? Why is the cyclist a problem to it?
I suppose you prefer cyclists passive, meek, and segregated on dainty little bike paths?
Well, for what I know, in my county, there have been two bikes run over. A very small number really.
Sadly, those fatalities aren’t even the point. The point is, a cyclist on a HIGHWAY do slow down traffic. I’m talking about the people that live here and the support services (trucks, busses, and tourists). I can’t put a number on it, but it does cost.
We are about to build a new bike path around the other side of the reservoir. We may be able to do it for $20,000,000 (I may be off by 10m low). It’s being built for all tourists, and cyclists. 20 feet wide.
We get a lot of cyclist up where I live that use the highway to train. The county is at 10,000’. We deal with it and work with it. But when the bike path is not crowded, I think the bikes should be on it. When the highway is busy, I think bikes should be excluded.
We’re working on it. And are building a new road. As I have said, I have nothing against cyclists.
In the county? The impression I got was that this road you were talking about was so dangerous you absolutely had to get bikes off. Instead we find out the reality is that you are inconvenienced.
If you were to examine the actual amount of time passing a bike requires versus the amount of delays caused by too many cars for the road to handle, you would find an exponential difference. Again, its like blaming a salad for making you fat. It is emotionally driven by a perceived delay, not based on the cause of real delays. The very fact that you mentioned that the road is being expanded shows the real source of delays. Nobody builds wider highways becuase there are bikes in some of the lanes.
Sounds nice. That does not mean it is an automatic substitute for using the roads.
Fortunately, what you think is not a consideration.
What’s the rationale for giving cars priority over bikes? Both are vehicles and many of us are using it for transporattion, not “training.” At the very least, bikes and cars should be treated equally. In fact bikes should have higher priority because they have far less impact to the environment, not to mention less wear of the road surface and reduced impact on the health care system (more excercise = reduced risk of obesity-related illnesses).
I get the distinct impression amongst some of the posters in this thread who are MOTORISTS that they tend to believe that cyclists are cyclists exactly 100% of their lives - almost as though they are separate sub species of homo erectus.
The reality is this, possibly a miniscule few cyclists are permanent cyclists, but the huge, HUGE majority of them are also motorists who pay road registration and licencing fees and all the other shared social costs of owning a vehicle. They merely CHOOSE to cycle for a whole bunch of reasons known only to them.
By extension, this vibe I’m hearing by certain motorists that cyclists are a “problem” who get in the way of a motorists right to go as fast as possible is a bullshit arguement. Almost without exception, whenever you see a cyclist above 17 years of age on the road, you can guarantee that cyclist represents one less vehicle on the road at that point in time - which by definition means that they are actually REDUCING road traffic, not adding to it.
Sadly, such honest logic is often lost in these sort of discussions.
If a cyclist cannot move with the flow of traffic, they are impeding it.
I agree with you here.
Me and thousands of other folks are inconvenienced. I would never ride on the road I’m talking about. But you’re right. The two deaths don’t demonstrate it’s that dangerous.
Inconvenienced… that’s just what the bikers say. The bike path is inconvenient because they have to slow down for other bikes, walkers etc. So instead, they choose to inconvenience motorists, by riding on the highway. Cyclists need to fess up and admit that this is a double standard.
Roads are designed for the highest speed that can be safely traveled. A speed that bikes cannot maintain.
Only when there are viable alternatives, such as the bike path.
We do. There have been talks about adding a bike lane to one of the roads I travel every day. I would like to see it done. And not for me as much for the cyclists.
If there are as many cars as you say, the impedement is minimal. Furthermore, the time it takes to pass a bicycle is one of the most overestimated things drivers do.
Which means that the safety excuse is merely a cover for getting bikes off the road. Man, this is the stuff John Forrester devoted chapters to in Effective Cycling
As we’ve pointed out to you already, multi-use trails aren’t merely slow, they are potentially dangerous. They also limit mobility (such as making left turns)
As for slow, a trail, even one that will likely cut a cyclists speed in half. This is unacceptable and goes beyond inconvenience. By comparison, the maximum ‘delay’ caused by a cyclist is at an absolute most 30 seconds, and is more often 3 or 10 seconds. Compare this to the delays caused by other cars in various forms and the ‘bike dealy’ claim becomes a joke. If you complaint is that they casuse delays during periods of heavy car traffic then you are looking at the wrong problem: The cars are causing the delays.
I don’t hear any cries for getting more cars off the road, so where is the double standard? I don’t see you telling other cars to go take another road?Seeems that by riding in the road the cyclists have already admitted that the MUT does not suit their needs for transport. But their rights allow that. By comparison, you’ve tried to use fake ‘safety concerns’ to try and get bikes out of the way of your impatient ass.
Haven’t you learned by now that the bike path (which as actually a multi-use trail, learn the damn difference already) is in no way a ‘viable alternative’? Just becuase you declare it to be one, doesn’t make it so.
The real world…The real world is where we live. Roads are used by cars, trucks and busses. Every consumable item is delivered by truck. When cyclists impede the flow of traffic, they drive up costs. To everyone.
Neither is yours
Yes and yes. But some cyclists will choose to impede the flow of traffic, lots of traffic, rather than use a bike path that was designed for them. I’ll concede that the bike path may be a little slower for the cyclist. If there is no path, by all means, use the road.
Ehhh. In some cases, like the dam road (it goes over a dam, NO shoulder and guard rails right at the edge of pavement) when cyclists insist that it is there right to slow down traffic when there is a bike path right next to it pisses me off. It’s not prudent, and seems to be all about an attitude that some bikers have.
I used to ride a lot (many moons ago). When I had an option to stay out of traffic, I did. It just made sense.
How much delays do bikes cause in comparison to cars, slow trucks, red lights, accidents, aggressive drivers, construction and other such? It isn’t remotely close. If the dealy is longer than 10 seconds on a multi-lane road, then the problem is too many cars.
No, but I’m not the one saying that someone’s rights should be trampled on.
Again: The impediment is nowhere near as you make it out to be, if it is the problem is due to cars. Bike paths are not a solution, as I’ve explained in many different ways. Its not just a ‘little slower’ it is critically slower. The delay caused to the cyclist by using the slower path is exponentially higher than the handful of seconds a car might be delayed by a cyclist.
You’re argueing in circles. You have failed to establish that using the bike path is ‘prudent’.
Your unwillingness to cycle effetively does not extend to those who choose to do so.
The double standard is that some cyclists feel it’s OK to slow down motorists and commerce (on a highway) because they don’t want to be slowed down on a multi-use trail.
I guess I’m talking about a very specific situation. The multi-use trail parallels a highway between two towns. The towns are 10 miles apart. To use any other road/highway to get to either town is a 170 - 210 mile detour depending on your route.
I’ve learned some things here. And I understand that cyclists get frustrated with the way some drivers treat them. It goes both ways.
a) The ‘slow-down’ you claim is such a problem is nowhere near as bad as caused by other sources. I’ve explained this to you many times. By comparison, the slow down on multi-use trails is much more signifigant, percentage wise. A 3-10 second delay of motorists does not compare to a much larger delay caused by the slower speed of the MUT. Using the description of the trial you mention below (10 mile road/trail), the seconds of delay the car driver experiences is contrasted with the half-hour delay (10mph vs. 20 mph) the cylists would experience. A lot of little delays to motorists does not add up cumulatively to the loss the cyclists experiences. Especially in light of delays motorists experience inthe face of other delays.
b) The idea that the fact that there is an alternative pathway it shoudl automatically be used is repulsive. Just because this MUT is nice, does not mean others will be. If you start pushing cyclists to trails simply because they are there then you are legitimizing the idea that bikes must be on MUTs wherever they exist, no matter what their conditions. Its like saying “gee the back of this bus is looks shiney and clean, what the problem with being forced to use it?”
c) MUTs and bike trails, have serious transportation issues. Turning left onto other roads and trails is a big one. Either the cyclist can’t access it, or a light or stop sign has to be installed so they can cross. Said light will cause far more delays than any cyclist on the road.
“These nouns refer to the exercise of good judgment, common sense, and even caution, especially in the conduct of practical matters”
So. Since only two people have died it’s not ‘prudent’. Is that what it takes? How many deaths before it becomes prudent to use the trail? How much traffic should be slowed down? Should we build the $20,000,000 bike path if the cyclists don’t use it?
