spclark 

Same here, had one for sixteen or seventeen years. This year's premium was $242.

jon c. 

Likely through experience. You find conditions on any route are not to your liking and you avoid that route in the future.

I expect that's pretty common practice.

Rick

I avoid bike paths when possible. I have rarely used an MUP either. The couple of times I have been on an MUP, I used the basic speed law. My speed is controlled by the conditions at the time of travel. I have never hit a pedestrian with a bicycle. I was riding with a group in Florida and we went down an MUP for several miles. There was a rollerblader in the middle of the path weaving right to left and back from center. It took some convincing for him to move to one side so we could pass. People are even more unpredictable on these paths than when driving a car.

Iride01 

You are picking with the syntax here and just trying to be a troll. It's reasonable to assume that the person saying they avoid such paths has ridden on such enough times to form their opinion. I avoided our local MUP during the first year of COVID as the traffic on it was terrible. Do I also need to add more wording to state that I did ride the path for a dozen or so rides prior to avoiding it? I wouldn't think so.

I-Like-To-Bike

The poster stated he didn't ride on the local paths, posted about his actual experience from over 50 years ago, but still posted in the present tense about the existing conditions on the paths that he does (or does not) ride, as well as ranted about pedestrians using cell phones and other conduct which allegedly interfered with his need for unobstructed speed on an MUP.

AND posted that that the MUP "needed" separate lanes for bicyclists and pedestrians because he says paths are unsafe without, regardless of whether the users of the MUP are satisfied with the current layout or whether there is sufficient room for such separation on the MUPs. He does not make clear how he or other speedy riders who get upset by alleged obstacles to their unimpeded speedy progress on the MUP will safely deal with slower riders dawdling in "their" separated lane.

Bottom line: it may not be desirable to reconfigure recreational MUPs if the rationale is that some speedy riders consider the MUP to be their "bike path" and won't use if if they have to slow down sometimes in order to share the MUP with other users, even those who may be holding a cell phone.

Troul 

whether the MUP by me have a standard width in-place, I often noticed that the width can get narrow enough that if a stroller pusher is hugging the far right, it still is a near miss when passing on the left... unless someone goes off of the pavement & there are no ditches/trees/rocks/broken bottles/car bumper.

More of a reason to have a liability policy imo. Never know when crap hits the fan.

Paul Barnard

Your default position is that there is no way for him to understand the current environment on that path, that he is just blowing smoke? What a fun place this would be if we operated under that assumption with all posts.

indyfabz

You're making too much sense for some people and making them flail more.

I-Like-To-Bike

Sure, everything to "understand" about bike lanes and MUPs and what their users need, as well as what is correct to "understand" about bicycling advocacy and bicycling safety can be learned by taking the postings on A&S from enthusiastic advocates as gospel. Especially the posts about what everybody else "needs" for their bicycling safety.

Paul Barnard

Am I to believe that you have any experience riding a bicycle, or should I assume that since you present yourself as a rider that you are not?

I-Like-To-Bike

You are free to believe whatever you choose to assume; or perhaps you prefer to assume whatever fits your chosen belief.