A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 25th 18, 04:09 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,505
Default Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns

On 2018-03-25 07:37, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 11:56:40 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-24 09:36, jbeattie wrote:


[...]


In some neighborhoods of PDX, the bike mode-share is 25%, and
the facilities in those areas are relatively minimal. What brings
out the riders is: (1) flat, (2) compact, close in neighborhood,
and (3) Bohemian population. Far more riders were created by the
culture in PDX than the facilities. On some streets, there are
zero facilities, and the cyclists just take over -- which is
really frustrating if you're in a car. When I ride in the lane, I
at least try to keep my speed up. Many dawdle with their
eight-ball helmets and ringy-bells.


Once you have a large enough number of cyclists that works. If you
start with a very low number cycling never gets started.


Except that it did in Portland. Most of the infrastructure followed a
surge in cycling, driven in large part by an influx of young
creatives. The roads were fine for riding because they were not that
busy and there were and are alternative routes through the
neighborhoods. A lot of my commute routes still involve ordinary
roads with no bike lanes, and most of my weekend riding is on rural
roads with no shoulders.


I trust your judgment since you seem to live there long enough but the
stories in publications sound differently (for those on low BW
connections, this is an 11MB PDF file):

http://www.portlandonline.com/shared....cfm?id=217489

Quote "The accelerating growth in bicycle use validates Portland's
"build it and they will come" approach to bicycle transportation".


Again, I'm not against infrastructure. It has its place, and its
particularly valuable if there are no usable roads or where there are
lots of bicycles and it relieves traffic pressure. Bikes are
traffic, and having a lane for bikes moves traffic.


Yes, bikes are traffic by most cyclists do not feel safe inside fast
traffic. Just like we would not feel safe driving a car on the same
stretch where a landing Boeing 747 could show up in the rear view mirror.


But putting in bike lanes did not create the bicycle traffic in
Portland, at least not initially. Facilities are now necessary just
to handle the volume, and the bike lanes and other facilities
undoubtedly brought out some more cyclists -- but figuring out who
those are would take some effort and not just guessing. I much
preferred the old roads to some new separated facilities, but with
minor exception, I do like all the bike lanes. I would settle for a
wide shoulder, though. It really makes no difference to me except
that a bike lane gives me right of way and a shoulder doesn't -- but
that doesn't make much difference if motorists don't know the rules.


Same here. The long county road back out of the Sacramento Valley only
has bike lanes in spots but much of it now has wide enough shoulders. I
ride there a lot but most other riders would never do that. That is why
we have split commutes or however that is called, where people truck it
to a park & ride lot in the valley near the American River bike path,
then ride the remaining stretch to work.

This part of my ride is roughly the last 8mi of my trip when returning
from the valley and it is not at all enjoyable. I'd much prefer a
segragated bike path. It would increase safety WRT distracted, stone,
soused or whatever drivers. It would also get me away from the constant
noise (drowns out my MP3 player even when on max volume) and most of all
the Diesel soot. When I hit rush hour on that road which is very often
then a cough often develops by the end of the ride. It doesn't if it's
not rush hour. That is not healthy.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Ads
  #12  
Old March 25th 18, 06:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,271
Default Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns

On 3/25/2018 11:09 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-25 07:37, jbeattie wrote:
... in Portland. Most of the infrastructure followed a
surge in cycling, driven in large part by an influx of young
creatives. The roads were fine for riding because they were not that
busy and there were and are alternative routes through the
neighborhoods. A lot of my commute routes still involve ordinary
roads with no bike lanes, and most of my weekend riding is on rural
roads with no shoulders.


I trust your judgment since you seem to live there long enough but the
stories in publications sound differently (for those on low BW
connections, this is an 11MB PDF file):

http://www.portlandonline.com/shared....cfm?id=217489

Quote "The accelerating growth in bicycle use validates Portland's
"build it and they will come" approach to bicycle transportation".


First, that document is ten years old. Nationwide, more segregated
facilities are being built, but bike mode share isn't keeping pace.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/09/...re-in-the-u-s/

Second, repeating a propaganda line doesn't make it true. There are
plenty of places where "they built it" but almost nobody came using
bikes. And there are places and times when lots of people began using
bikes despite absolutely no increase in special bike infrastructure.

[Jay wrote:}

I much
preferred the old roads to some new separated facilities, but with
minor exception, I do like all the bike lanes.* I would settle for a
wide shoulder, though.* It really makes no difference to me except
that a bike lane gives me right of way and a shoulder doesn't -- but
that doesn't make much difference if motorists don't know the rules


One lawyer I know is worried about the reduction in legal protection
when you ride on a shoulder. According to him, some laws are written
such that your rights diminish if you're not in the normal traffic lane
(or, I suppose, in a bike lane).

My main worries on shoulders are 1) debris, and 2) rumble strips
preventing me from avoiding debris. I've described briefly moving to a
shoulder to make passing easier for a following vehicle, and immediately
getting a flat as a reward. The regular lane gets nicely swept clean by
car tires.

Same here. The long county road back out of the Sacramento Valley only
has bike lanes in spots but much of it now has wide enough shoulders. I
ride there a lot but most other riders would never do that. That is why
we have split commutes or however that is called, where people truck it
to a park & ride lot in the valley near the American River bike path,
then ride the remaining stretch to work.

This part of my ride is roughly the last 8mi of my trip when returning
from the valley and it is not at all enjoyable. I'd much prefer a
segragated bike path.


You're asking for an eight mile segregated bike path along a minor
county road? Should that happen on every minor county road? How many
trillion or quadrillion dollars should be allotted to projects like
that? Where would the money come from? How high would you like your real
estate and sales taxes to be?

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #13  
Old March 25th 18, 10:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Roger Merriman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 143
Default Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns

jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 9:04:28 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/24/2018 10:21 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-23 11:53, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 3:18:52 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:49:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...-friendly-town




I thought this was particularly sensible: "I've spent enough time in
Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Malmo to realize that the world's
truly great bicycle friendly places had lots of bicyclists before
they had lots of infrastructure.


They would have lost all that had they not built the infrastructure.
That happened time and again, including here in the US. In the old days
people rode because they could simply not afford a motor vehicle. Only
the doctor, the factory owner and the mayor could. Germany is a classic
example where ridership plummeted while DK and NL built a bike
infrastructure and, consequently, many people kept cycling.

IOW if you don't build it they'll leave.


*Change the culture.* Create
cyclists... more than you can possibly imagine.* If you do, then
the built environment will naturally follow."

I'm not saying it's easy. It's just more sensible than spending
a fortune hoping to build an Amsterdam.

The "if you build it, they will pedal" approach that many people
are rightly suspicious of.* That infrastructure draws existing
cyclists, but does it add to them?* I'm sure someone has some stats
on that.* I am doubtful but I could be wrong.


There are lots of examples, one of the being NYC and in particular
Manhattan. If has now leveled off which was to be expected but they sure
has phenomenal growth:

https://www.amny.com/transit/cycling...nyc-1.17556903

It has also resulted in extra business revenuw especially for
restaurants and pubs which also translates into more tax flow.


For the last 30 years, I've been cycling to the same building and
riding the same bank of elevators every morning.* No, this is not a
suicide note -- just background on the reoccurring conversation I
have with would-be cyclists. Once or twice a week, someone asks me
how far I ride or makes some comment on the fact that I rode in the
rain, snow, wind (whatever -- most comments came when I was riding in
an ortho-boot after my ski fractures), and then I get the excuse. "I
would ride except that [it is too far, there are too many hills, the
weather sucks, it is "dangerous" or "other"].

Yesterday, I was standing in the elevator, dripping wet from the
rain, and I got the usual question about how far I ride, and then
this early middle-aged, somewhat overweight woman tells me she lives
seven miles away but that there are two big hills, and she's not good
with hills. Hills are a serious impediment for people who live west
of the West Hills.

Anyway, no infrastructure is going to get a lot more people on bikes
unless it is flat, ...


Not so. At least not out here and not in all the places I lived which
were all quite hilly.


* ... placed near town or some work destination, ...


Not so either. They just truck their bikes to the trail head.


*... the weather is generally O.K. and that it is not "dangerous."


Correct. Most will not ride on busy thoroughfares and most won't ride in
the rain or when it's too cold or hot.


...* Dangerous can be other bicycles according to one fit woman I know.


That I haven't heard, ever. It's just that some of the faster riders
object to having to slow down so much before passing. Like people not
wanting to head out for a road trip in their car when everyone else does.


************************* ******************** ...* She's
afraid of other bicyclists in the crowded facilities.
https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/...r-photos-55300


BTW, the "other" category is simply never-will-ride people making
excuses like busy schedules and general impossibility.* Those folks
will never ride.

Just removing danger -- like building a separated facility -- will
bring out some additional riders, but if it is not flat or close-in,
it will probably just collect those people who are already riding and
are willing to make a real effort. A hilly bike path will attract the
young but somewhat timid and the spin-class heros who have big
engines but don't know how to handle themselves on the roads. It's
not going to get granny on her bike -- at least not on a regular
basis.


It is going to get a lot of people onto bikes, see Manhattan and umpteen
other examples. However, many of those will be people who are not
foreign to riding but generally don't ride (anymore). The proverbial
garage queen owners.

I have convinced some to start riding again after showing them bike
paths and singletrack. They simply will not ride on busy roads. That's
just how it is. If there is a bike path they truck their bikes there, if
there isn't then they don't ride and their bikes remain garage queens.


Joerg, you have convinced "some" to start riding again. Wonderful - but
how many is "some"? Did you get the local bike mode share above 10%?
Above 3%? No, "some" probably means three people rode their bikes for a
while. Odds are they will soon find something else to do.

Let's recall that despite all the rah-rah news tied to the thousands of
various bike facilities built in the past decades, bike mode share is
still microscopic:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...t_popular.html

Let's recall that during the years when a lawsuit prevented almost ANY
bike construction in San Francisco, cycling still rose in popularity as
much as it did in cities that were painting their roads green and
shuttling cyclists into chutes. It was fashionable to ride, so people
rode. No infrastructure necessary.

And lets recall that fashion is powerful but temporary. The current
increases in bike use are not as great as the surge in the early 1970s.
These modest increases are probably tied more to trendiness than to
weird segregated facilities. And the trendiness may last no longer than
the tie-dyed bell bottoms, disco, cabbage patch dolls or fidget spinners.

I think those who love riding bicycles will ride. Everyone else will
travel by the most convenient method available. Some of those "others"
will be on bikes, but in a country where people drive over 25 miles on a
typical day, most won't give up the car for the bike.


Facilities in some places will increase ridership -- but determining the
effect of the facility on the increase is really hard. There are
billions of riders in the new south waterfront cycle track that weren't
there 30 years ago. Nobody was there 30 years ago except me and some
crack-heads, back when it was a pot-holed road through a warehouse
district and former shipyard. Now it is a massive condo development -- a
pop-up mini-city for the hipster urbanites. I think it is blight and
preferred the empty, rutted road, but now it's crawling with people,
streetcars, buses, aerial trams -- and cyclists.

On the other hand, millions were spent on the HWY 205 bike path, and I
never see anyone riding out there or way out on Burnside in the pin-head
region. You can put in awesome facilities, and the locals won't give a
sh** if they're a bunch of mullet-heads tossing 40 ouncers out their car
windows. You have to have people who want to ride. I only ride those
facilities when I'm getting out to the Gorge. It's nice having them, but not much ROI.

-- Jay Beattie.


The build and they will come, does come but frankly with some fairly big
caveats, lot of the London Super Highways where busy with bikes before,
they where bike lanes, though the segregated sectors do seem to be pulling
in more than just the high speed/mileage commuters.

But not all works that well, my commute has a few miles of shared paths for
a few miles, lots of cars often stationary but bikes are a rarity, do see a
number of electric skateboards though! The path is direct and connects up
to the town centres on route but barely anyone uses it, they would rather
sit in there cars, it’s nr Heathrow and folks I swear go and sit in traffic
jams as a hobby around there!

Roger Merriman



  #14  
Old March 25th 18, 11:58 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,365
Default Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns

On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 10:57:58 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2018 11:09 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-25 07:37, jbeattie wrote:
... in Portland. Most of the infrastructure followed a
surge in cycling, driven in large part by an influx of young
creatives. The roads were fine for riding because they were not that
busy and there were and are alternative routes through the
neighborhoods. A lot of my commute routes still involve ordinary
roads with no bike lanes, and most of my weekend riding is on rural
roads with no shoulders.


I trust your judgment since you seem to live there long enough but the
stories in publications sound differently (for those on low BW
connections, this is an 11MB PDF file):

http://www.portlandonline.com/shared....cfm?id=217489

Quote "The accelerating growth in bicycle use validates Portland's
"build it and they will come" approach to bicycle transportation".


First, that document is ten years old. Nationwide, more segregated
facilities are being built, but bike mode share isn't keeping pace.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/09/...re-in-the-u-s/

Second, repeating a propaganda line doesn't make it true. There are
plenty of places where "they built it" but almost nobody came using
bikes. And there are places and times when lots of people began using
bikes despite absolutely no increase in special bike infrastructure.


The stats also don't support the proposition in many areas. There was a large increase in counts in Southwest Portland with no real infrastructure projects. Same with the close-in South East -- the Bohemian belly-button of Portland or maybe nipple. Close in South East has traffic calmed streets and old developments that were plenty rideable without the sharrows. Welcome to Dopeville: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azFUWiI2yA0

There is a north south facility that is a big collector and undoubtedly adds volume over the Hawthorne Bridge, but I don't know how many of those people were riding already or would have ridden in any event. There are plenty of north-south connectors. Anyway, I saw numbers going up with the influx in population long before the facilities, and the effect of facilities on ridership should be studied rather than just asserted.

[Jay wrote:}

I much
preferred the old roads to some new separated facilities, but with
minor exception, I do like all the bike lanes.* I would settle for a
wide shoulder, though.* It really makes no difference to me except
that a bike lane gives me right of way and a shoulder doesn't -- but
that doesn't make much difference if motorists don't know the rules


One lawyer I know is worried about the reduction in legal protection
when you ride on a shoulder. According to him, some laws are written
such that your rights diminish if you're not in the normal traffic lane
(or, I suppose, in a bike lane).

My main worries on shoulders are 1) debris, and 2) rumble strips
preventing me from avoiding debris. I've described briefly moving to a
shoulder to make passing easier for a following vehicle, and immediately
getting a flat as a reward. The regular lane gets nicely swept clean by
car tires.

Same here. The long county road back out of the Sacramento Valley only
has bike lanes in spots but much of it now has wide enough shoulders. I
ride there a lot but most other riders would never do that. That is why
we have split commutes or however that is called, where people truck it
to a park & ride lot in the valley near the American River bike path,
then ride the remaining stretch to work.

This part of my ride is roughly the last 8mi of my trip when returning
from the valley and it is not at all enjoyable. I'd much prefer a
segragated bike path.


You're asking for an eight mile segregated bike path along a minor
county road? Should that happen on every minor county road? How many
trillion or quadrillion dollars should be allotted to projects like
that? Where would the money come from? How high would you like your real
estate and sales taxes to be?


Most of my ride today was on shoulderless arterials and secondary roads. It's not pleasant in places, but it doesn't bother me that much -- and like you say, the gov'munt isn't going to put in a bicycle Habitrail. And really? Blasting an MP3 player? Who the f*** does that? Joerg would be shunned in PDX.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #15  
Old March 26th 18, 01:21 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 272
Default Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns

On Friday, March 23, 2018 at 7:53:49 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 3:18:52 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:49:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...-friendly-town

I thought this was particularly sensible: "I've spent enough time in
Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Malmo to realize that the world's truly
great bicycle friendly places had lots of bicyclists before they had
lots of infrastructure. Change the culture. Create cyclists... more
than you can possibly imagine. If you do, then the built environment
will naturally follow."

I'm not saying it's easy. It's just more sensible than spending a
fortune hoping to build an Amsterdam.


The "if you build it, they will pedal" approach that many people are
rightly suspicious of. That infrastructure draws existing cyclists, but
does it add to them? I'm sure someone has some stats on that. I am
doubtful but I could be wrong.


For the last 30 years, I've been cycling to the same building and riding the same bank of elevators every morning. No, this is not a suicide note -- just background on the reoccurring conversation I have with would-be cyclists. Once or twice a week, someone asks me how far I ride or makes some comment on the fact that I rode in the rain, snow, wind (whatever -- most comments came when I was riding in an ortho-boot after my ski fractures), and then I get the excuse. "I would ride except that [it is too far, there are too many hills, the weather sucks, it is "dangerous" or "other"].

Yesterday, I was standing in the elevator, dripping wet from the rain, and I got the usual question about how far I ride, and then this early middle-aged, somewhat overweight woman tells me she lives seven miles away but that there are two big hills, and she's not good with hills. Hills are a serious impediment for people who live west of the West Hills.

Anyway, no infrastructure is going to get a lot more people on bikes unless it is flat, placed near town or some work destination, the weather is generally O.K. and that it is not "dangerous." Dangerous can be other bicycles according to one fit woman I know. She's afraid of other bicyclists in the crowded facilities. https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/...r-photos-55300 BTW, the "other" category is simply never-will-ride people making excuses like busy schedules and general impossibility. Those folks will never ride.

Just removing danger -- like building a separated facility -- will bring out some additional riders, but if it is not flat or close-in, it will probably just collect those people who are already riding and are willing to make a real effort. A hilly bike path will attract the young but somewhat timid and the spin-class heros who have big engines but don't know how to handle themselves on the roads. It's not going to get granny on her bike -- at least not on a regular basis.

-- Jay Beattie.


Here in The Netherlands were it is dead flat, save, nice weather most of the times, bike paths as an integral parts of the infrastructure I notice a boost in cycling after people stopped feeling embarrassed using a electric assisted bike. 30% of all sold bikes now are electric assisted and still growing.

Lou
  #16  
Old March 26th 18, 03:45 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,505
Default Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns

On 2018-03-25 10:57, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2018 11:09 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-25 07:37, jbeattie wrote:
... in Portland. Most of the infrastructure followed a
surge in cycling, driven in large part by an influx of young
creatives. The roads were fine for riding because they were not that
busy and there were and are alternative routes through the
neighborhoods. A lot of my commute routes still involve ordinary
roads with no bike lanes, and most of my weekend riding is on rural
roads with no shoulders.


I trust your judgment since you seem to live there long enough but the
stories in publications sound differently (for those on low BW
connections, this is an 11MB PDF file):

http://www.portlandonline.com/shared....cfm?id=217489

Quote "The accelerating growth in bicycle use validates Portland's
"build it and they will come" approach to bicycle transportation".


First, that document is ten years old. Nationwide, more segregated
facilities are being built, but bike mode share isn't keeping pace.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/09/...re-in-the-u-s/


Second, repeating a propaganda line doesn't make it true. There are
plenty of places where "they built it" but almost nobody came using
bikes. And there are places and times when lots of people began using
bikes despite absolutely no increase in special bike infrastructure.


One can always find a hair in the soup some place. Fact is, properly
design bike facilities can increase ridership, bike time.


[Jay wrote:}

I much
preferred the old roads to some new separated facilities, but with
minor exception, I do like all the bike lanes. I would settle for a
wide shoulder, though. It really makes no difference to me except
that a bike lane gives me right of way and a shoulder doesn't -- but
that doesn't make much difference if motorists don't know the rules


One lawyer I know is worried about the reduction in legal protection
when you ride on a shoulder. According to him, some laws are written
such that your rights diminish if you're not in the normal traffic lane
(or, I suppose, in a bike lane).

My main worries on shoulders are 1) debris, and 2) rumble strips
preventing me from avoiding debris. I've described briefly moving to a
shoulder to make passing easier for a following vehicle, and immediately
getting a flat as a reward. The regular lane gets nicely swept clean by
car tires.


If you are not riding on a wide enough shoulder or bike lane the next
sheriff's deputy is likely going to stop and ticket you. That's the law
in California.


Same here. The long county road back out of the Sacramento Valley only
has bike lanes in spots but much of it now has wide enough shoulders.
I ride there a lot but most other riders would never do that. That is
why we have split commutes or however that is called, where people
truck it to a park & ride lot in the valley near the American River
bike path, then ride the remaining stretch to work.

This part of my ride is roughly the last 8mi of my trip when returning
from the valley and it is not at all enjoyable. I'd much prefer a
segragated bike path.


You're asking for an eight mile segregated bike path along a minor
county road? Should that happen on every minor county road? How many
trillion or quadrillion dollars should be allotted to projects like
that?



Only one cycling artery is needed, more or less along Highway 50. Some
smart people have advocated that (even without my input ...) but the not
so smart ones were in office and decided to sprinkle $50M+ into paving a
singletrack. Which was a rather stupid decision but they started it.

So those $50M could have been used for that and it is way more than
would be needed. The rest could be given back to the taxpayer.


Where would the money come from? How high would you like your real
estate and sales taxes to be?


See above. One only has to be wise with the spending instead of profligate.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #17  
Old March 26th 18, 11:04 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,271
Default Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns

On 3/26/2018 10:45 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-25 10:57, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Second, repeating a propaganda line doesn't make it true. There are
plenty of places where "they built it" but almost nobody came using
bikes. And there are places and times when lots of people began using
bikes despite absolutely no increase in special bike infrastructure.


One can always find a hair in the soup some place. Fact is, properly
design bike facilities can increase ridership, bike time.


Perhaps sometimes, in some places, some bike facilities "can" increase
ridership. But that's not the propaganda claim. The claim by you and
other facility sellers is without qualification, that they absolutely
"will" come. It's false. There are certainly examples where bike
facilities made no difference in ridership.

LAB's recent lists of state's and city's bike commuting share make that
clear. Only Oregon (barely) exceeds 2% bike mode share. Only five other
states exceed 1%.

Oddly, their list of 70 large cities with _highest_ bike mode share
includes Charlotte, NC, with a bike mode share of zero percent! (It's
like a kindergartener's trophy for showing up!) LAB found a way to add
Plano TX and Memphis TN to its bragging lists, even though each city has
a bike mode share of 0.1%.

I know that you, Joerg, think 0.1% is great for the U.S. But it's not.

My main worries on shoulders are 1) debris, and 2) rumble strips
preventing me from avoiding debris. I've described briefly moving to a
shoulder to make passing easier for a following vehicle, and immediately
getting a flat as a reward. The regular lane gets nicely swept clean by
car tires.


If you are not riding on a wide enough shoulder or bike lane the next
sheriff's deputy is likely going to stop and ticket you.


Baloney.

That's the law in California.


It's been discussed thoroughly. The law has plenty of exceptions, and
tickets are almost nonexistent.

You're asking for an eight mile segregated bike path along a minor
county road? Should that happen on every minor county road? How many
trillion or quadrillion dollars should be allotted to projects like
that?



Only one cycling artery is needed, more or less along Highway 50.


IOW, you want YOUR special segregated bike path because YOU want to ride
there.

It is odd that the State of California hasn't realized how special and
deserving you are. Those darned penny pinchers!


--
- Frank Krygowski
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nice bicycling article in Washington Post Frank Krygowski[_2_] General 8 August 7th 08 02:47 AM
Nice Herald Tribune article Mark McNeill UK 0 May 6th 06 04:43 PM
Nice Retro Lemond Article B. Lafferty Racing 10 October 4th 05 07:58 PM
Nice Bike Industry Article TBF::. Mountain Biking 22 December 7th 04 09:00 PM
Bike towns Steven General 5 August 3rd 03 10:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.