On 01/04/2017 02:26 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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.

I've biked divided highways during some of my bike touring and while I always felt
safe on the roads, the noise was really annoying over a period of hours.

The breakdown lanes kept 70+ mph cars at a safe distance, but that constant noise
from tires especially really degraded any enjoyment of generally easy riding.

Technically, on many of these Interstates and other divided highways that allow
bicycles (mostly in western states), riders are supposed to exit each off-ramp, then
return on the corresponding on-ramp.

While I understand the safety reasons for requiring that, I never actually did that.
But if I were on a heavily trafficked highway like I-95, etc., I think I'd use the ramps.

I was always quite happy to return to regular roads after riding a divided highway
for a few hours or day!


SMH