Cycling surges in the land of the automobile

On 10/26/2010 4:28 PM, damyth wrote:


I'm reminded of the certain signs I see on private property going
through rural areas.

"Never mind the dog. Beware of Owner."

Let's say what's shown in the Assen pictures got transplanted over
here in CA. You'd have widespread motorist revolt. They'll literally
overthrow the government. There's no way they'd put up with one lane
(if a mechanical issue or accident happened).

Outside of the large cities here, there are almost no
roads NOT like that one. When I lived in MA I remember
it about the same -Route 1, I think it was, was pretty
typical.

Albany had wider roads and less traffic but it's
a pretty small city.

On 10/26/2010 10:53 PM, damyth wrote:
On Oct 26, 6:52 pm, Clive wrote:

In the interests of full disclosure, here's what an on-road bike path
looks like. Feel free to do a "virtual drive" in google maps to get
an idea what on road bike conditions are like.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/23mx6jh

Pretty typical of a lot of the bike lanes here. Maybe a bit
wider around where there are cars parked. Looks like you could
stay far enough to the left of doors. We don't usually have street
parking on roads like that though.

The vehicle speed limit on that road is 40mph (limits are posted on
the side of road in white signs). On residential streets the
(default) speed limit is 25mph unless otherwise posted.

Same here on this type of road. Speed limit is usually 60km/h though
sometime 70. Sometime gets a little exciting moving over to take
a left. But we have the same issue here without a bike lane. Cyclist
have to ride in the right lane unless turning left. So the only
difference is getting into the first lane.

On 10/26/2010 11:45 PM, damyth wrote:


Bah. I think I'll just give you the answer. You folks can mull it
over.

I think for most of us, the bike was our first taste of freedom. Once
you mastered riding a bike, you were in charge of where you needed to
go. You no longer needed to depend upon anyone else to get around the
neighborhood. Similarly, when most of us go for a Sunday drive, we
want to experience the "open road."

The bike trails do not provide either sensation. They are too
constraining. The barrier/walls/fences make the bike trails feel
claustrophobic. Even when there are no barriers the trail is too
narrow. Completely unsatisfactory experience.

So in a certain sense, you are correct. It's just plain not fun to
ride on these trails. But I hope you now understand what "fun"
means.

The problem with separate bike paths here is that they are too
crowded. Though most don't have walls around them g

On 10/27/2010 2:21 AM, damyth wrote:

The kiss of death for all bike trails in Santa Clara Valley are
intersections. Whenever a bike trail crosses a road, the cyclist must
stop. It's way worse than a 4-way stop because the trail doesn't go
through the traditional intersection; it crosses the perpendicular
road slightly short of the (traditional) intersection. Because there
is no signage, motorists aren't even aware the bike trail is there.
Total deathtraps.

Agree with you there. This is a very bad design that can get people
hurt. What the did here in some cases to "protect" the cyclist is put
these sort of parallel gates where you have to side through them.
Really sucks. http://tinyurl.com/32622d9

Needless to say most cyclists ride on the road leaving the bike path for
pedestrians. We have a group here that are actively lobbying to fix
these things though.

On 10/26/2010 9:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

If I were forced to do _something_ to increase the "niceness" of that
pretty-looking road, I might say "OK, let's lower the speed
limit." (Maybe valuable if it's _really_ true that someone couldn't
see a bike 100 yards ahead.) Or put up signs "Watch for
bicyclists." (In French, if necessary.) Or if you really felt
compelled to use up some asphalt, make the lanes 15 feet wide, for
sharing. But I really doubt any of those are necessary, unless that
road gets tons of traffic.

About that last alternative: If the pavement widened existing lanes,
instead of paving a separate path, it would be plowed in winter, it
would never need swept, it would attract fewer rollerbladers and dog
walkers, and everyone could operate according to the ordinary rules of
the road. Seems better to me.

Lowering the speed limit would be useless. No one follows the speed
limit now. As for the sign, a lot of roads similar to this one have
a sign with a bike/car and these seem to increase awareness. "Watch for
cyclists" gives the wrong idea IMO.

Anyway, no one is going to spend any money on this road for more than
maybe a few signs. It's a pretty decent stretch from any residential
area. I don't think you're going to see any rollerbladers or dog
walkers. I'm not saying that I want a bike path there. Just that if
there was one as nice as the one shown, I would use it.


Some guys here posted that type of road was horrible. To me
it's just how the roads are here. It would be better with a path on the
side.

That road looks like my favorite roads do. I don't think a separate
path would be better.

We each have an opinion. I ride on a lot of roads like this. A few
have paths next to them and they usually improve things. I don't like
being by cars. I don't like exhaust fumes and I don't like riding
defensively when I don't have to.

Come on Frank are you telling me that all drivers are good?

No, but the fact there are bad drivers doesn't justify separating
bikes. The problem of bad drivers is just not that serious, and the
"solution" of separation usually seems worse, when it's possible at
all.

Around here the problem of bad drivers is pretty serious. As I would
guess it is in most urban areas.

I've had several accidents in a car, none of which were my
fault. On a bike, any one of them would have been bad.
You need to drive defensively on a bike as in a car. Probably more
so since you will be on the short end of a mishap. Don't
you agree with that?

I can't say. I've only had two minor dents in my driving career, both
involving slow-speed backing up in parking lots. It seems odds of a
car-car crash are about as low as my odds of a car-bike crash.

We don't live in the same areas.

I do what seems correct at the moment. Skulking next to the sidewalk
normally doesn't seem to be correct so I don't normally do that. But that
doesn't mean that
I like riding in traffic. I prefer riding in peace. That's why I ride a
bike. Healthy excercise, stress reduction, nice views etc. Why do
you ride?

Lots of reasons.
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/NewsAnd...philosophy.htm

The first couple of paragraphs seem to paraphrase what I just said.


Sharing a lane to you means riding in the same lane as a car. Are you
asking me if I wouldn't prefer to have my own lane? Well who wouldn't?

When I want my own lane - as opposed to sharing it with a car - I just
move a couple feet left. Works for me, and it has none of the
separation disadvantages.

I don't like being behind exhaust pipes. I prefer not being in front of
someone who I have to rely on to not be an idiot that has a couple of
tons of metal pointed at me. I prefer not to have people buzzing my
left elbow. I like riding at my own pace.

Given a choice I will ride on roads that have less traffic. Sometime
this means riding on a road instead of a bike path. Sometime if means
riding on a bike path. There are some nice scenic ones around here,
especially if you like climbing a bit.

I will never take the road solely because it's a road, just as I will
never take a bike path solely because it's not a road.

You seem to be insistent on using roads - some sort of activism. Fine.

On 10/27/2010 7:28 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
"Duane considered Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:43:46
-0400 the perfect time to write:



Come on Frank are you telling me that all drivers are good?
I've had several accidents in a car, none of which were my
fault. On a bike, any one of them would have been bad.
You need to drive defensively on a bike as in a car. Probably more
so since you will be on the short end of a mishap. Don't
you agree with that?

Morally speaking, you should be driving far more carefully in a car,
since you present a far higher threat to others.
On a bike, even if you are being a total plonker, the overwhelming
majority of the risk is to yourself. If the same was true of cars, I
suspect driving standards would improve dramatically.

Absolutely.

On 10/26/2010 11:45 PM, damyth wrote:

Bah. I think I'll just give you the answer. You folks can mull it
over.

I think for most of us, the bike was our first taste of freedom. Once
you mastered riding a bike, you were in charge of where you needed to
go. You no longer needed to depend upon anyone else to get around the
neighborhood. Similarly, when most of us go for a Sunday drive, we
want to experience the "open road."

I remember clearly the mobility that I got from my bike as a kid in
suburbia. I also quickly learned that there were many places I couldn't
get to by bike: strip malls on the state highway, even our little town
center as it was similarly reachable from my house only on a high speed,
no shoulder, road. Unfortunately, that eliminated the library. There
were lots of places I could go, but not that many I wanted to actually
go to.

In contrast, my kids use transit, having grown up in a more urban
setting. They use bikes, too, but always transit when with friends since
none of them ride bikes. As for "freedom", I think transit was much more
liberating than bikes. They go everywhere, around the city by bus and
trolley, around the metro area via commuter rail, and even around the
state or interstate by bus & train. The suburb I grew up in was 20 miles
outside the city, almost everything required a car. My kids, in contrast
can hop an express bus and be at the Boston Public Library in 15
minutes. I would have killed for that. Likewise, a visit to the science
museum or aquarium was a once a year field trip if I was lucky -- for my
kids, more like a dozen times (with family memberships). Bikes are great
for kids to get to things in a 5-10 mile radius, transit is even better,
especially for year round convenience. Having a local bike path enabled
(solo) access to the city for my kids at a relatively early age (~13)
and family rides much earlier than that (~5).

I haven't done a "Sunday drive" since my suburban teenage years, and
that was out of boredom. Since then I've done a gazillion Sunday bike
rides, though. It was a practical way to get around during college,
including on dates, a pattern I kept up all the way through the child
rearing years, and plan to maintain through dotage.

The bike trails do not provide either sensation. They are too
constraining. The barrier/walls/fences make the bike trails feel
claustrophobic. Even when there are no barriers the trail is too
narrow. Completely unsatisfactory experience.

Some are dull. I really like our riverside trail for its open vistas. We
often take our time going back & forth from the city, with frequent
stops just to enjoy the views and weather. As Frank so frequently points
out, the opportunities for scenic routes (or routes at all) are limited,
but river and coastal areas often provide really pleasant riding, even
if the route isn't direct. Rail trails are often the opposite, direct
paths with little to see. I'm not very familiar with desert area cities.
I saw plans to put a bike path in along the "river" in LA. That doesn't
sound so attractive.

Boston has a ring of parks and green spaces laid out during Victorian
times. It got pretty chopped up during the urban highway era. A shame
really, but there are plans to stitch it back together with bicycle
facilities. That would be great.

The urban "hipster" bike culture is often derided here, but I'd point
out that, at least for my teenage daughter, it's become a "cool" scene
to feel a part of. She's become quite the little poseur on her "vintage"
bike. Part of that cachet seems to be "bike messenger chic", complete
with anarchistic riding styles -- I'm trying to de-emphasize that -- but
the reason I bring it up is because it's essentially a "street" culture,
and loses much of its vitality and appeal when moved to bike paths.
Another aesthetic to consider. As much as I feel that facilities are
important to popularize, particularly urban, cycling, I'd hate it if
cycling were corralled into neat little corridors. "All ages" cycling is
important, but "free range" cycling even more so.

On 10/27/2010 9:29 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

I don't like being behind exhaust pipes. I prefer not being in front of
someone who I have to rely on to not be an idiot that has a couple of
tons of metal pointed at me. I prefer not to have people buzzing my left
elbow. I like riding at my own pace.

I think the "aesthetic" argument for separated facilities (for those who
want them) is valid. Even "well behaved" motor traffic is pretty
unpleasant to be proximate to. There's the exhaust -- particularly nasty
is diesel particulate (soot), there's the noise -- loud pipes are
becoming ever more fashionable apparently, then there's the whole
subwoofer thing..., but also the heat from both motors & AC systems in
the summer, the splashing with dirty, cold water -- or the very worst,
icy, briny slush here in the winter. You go to all the trouble of
fitting fenders, mudflaps, shoe covers and all that, then some yahoo
sends up a filthy tsunami and it's all over (you). Getting dazzled by
headlights is unpleasant, particularly from the many drivers who feel
cyclists don't require dimming. One experience I've nearly, but
thankfully never, had was to be squirted from a bloated road kill
carcass. I think that might make me give up cycling altogether.

Per damyth:
I'm trying to help folks understand why bike paths (at least in CA)
aren't chosen by cyclists. The drawbacks (and there are many) may not
be obvious unless you've ridden one.

Here's one: tree roots.

The Schulkyll River Trail (follows the river into Philadelphia
PA, USA) was probably smooth as a baby's butt when it first
opened. But now roots from adjacent trees have created a
washboard effect in many areas. Ditto a lot of the paths in
Valley Forge Historical Park.

I still ride it. Roadies still ride it... but if there were a
parallel route I'd think some would prefer the automobile-grade
surface.

I used to take the motor vehicle roads through Valley Forge
instead of the path that was part of my ride to work before they
re-paved it. The irregularities on the path were just too
heinous and the road was too smooth not to.
--
PeteCresswell

Per Frank Krygowski:
By contrast, I find most bike paths boring.

+1.

--
PeteCresswell