On 1/4/2017 3:40 PM, Stephen Harding wrote:
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!

I agree with all that. I'll just note that on our coast-to-coast tour,
there were times I wanted to choose a route that used side roads. I was
amazed that I was outvoted by my wife and daughter, who preferred the
interstates.


--
- Frank Krygowski