On 1/3/2017 9:52 PM, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 03 Jan 2017
11:57:40 -0800 the perfect time to write:
There is no safe way to get to Placerville by bicycle
other than singletrack. Placerville is a city. Riding on Highway 50 is
prohibited.

Yes, we know you don't live in a civilised country (where bicycles
have the right to use public highways) but in a barbarian backwater
where any cyclist on a road is considered fair game and potential
roadkill. What is so special about Highway 50, and how was the
right-of-way for non-motorised traffic lost?

The situation Joerg describes can be a problem. I heard about a similar
thing occurring in southern Ohio, where what had been a two lane highway
was converted to a freeway, and bicyclists were prohibited. The state
bike advocacy organization tried to get the prohibition overturned, but
the state department of transportation (which is frequently not
cooperative) said that too few cyclists used that road and that parallel
routes were available. They were probably right on the low bike usage,
but the parallel routes are so hilly that they're prohibitive.

I've biked many, many miles on limited access roads, and except in
cities, I don't think bikes should be generally prohibited. Data I've
seen indicates no real safety problem; and most cyclists willing to put
up with the bad aesthetics of those roads are probably dedicated enough
to be reasonably competent.

But I do think that when such a road is built, highway departments
should build (and later maintain) a separate bike path within that right
of way, and afterward maintain it properly. In rural areas, the
crossing conflicts are few, and those tend to be the big problem with
most bike lanes, even "protected" ones. And providing some extra
separation from parallel traffic would at least slightly reduce the
noise level. The percentage increase of the road construction project's
costs would be small.


The parts of the UK with cycling infrastructure have almost no
cycling, whereas Cambridge, with almost no dedicated infrastructure,
leads the country in cycle use. Because it's the only place that
discourages car use.
Basingstoke, Stevenage, Milton Keynes, Harlow, and others were new
towns built with excellent cycling infrastructure, but almost no
cycling at all. Build it and they will drive instead, as long as you
don't discourage them!
Mass use of cycles in The Netherlands preceded the dedicated
infrastructure by decades!
Discouragement is pretty subtle in The Netherlands, mostly consisting
of NOT providing huge multi-lane highways into town and city centres
or allowing motor vehicles to dominate the urban environment.

I agree that discouragement of motor vehicles is necessary to achieve
high bike mode share. Unfortunately, I don't see that discouragement
happening to any notable degree in the U.S. That's why I think our bike
mode share will never exceed a percent or two, despite the daydreamer's
fantasies.


--
- Frank Krygowski