Originally Posted by fishboat

Several years back I was offered an all-expenses paid work transfer to the Charlotte area. They'd buy my home here, give me another chunk of cash to cover expenses at the Charlotte end. I visited Charlotte a number of times for work and looking at homes/areas. Nice enough area (I was there mostly in late summer and fall). Climate (as I sit here at -7F outside) is certainly milder than Wisconsin.

I declined the move. About 50% of the reason I declined was a nagging feeling I'd die cycling the roads. So much traffic on narrow-no bike-lane roads. Everyone rushing around as they're late due to the traffic. A joke there(as related by a local) was if you're having a slow day you can always grab a lawn chair and watch intersections for one-car accidents(I saw two while there). They're racing (an apparently losing battle) building infrastructure to keep up with population growth and cyclists are not even an afterthought...by the look of it at least. Bike trails (non-MTB) are nearly non-existent..but the taxes are low(er). At the time, I read something online that Montana? and South Carolina were tied for leading the nation in pedestrian deaths due to autos..I think cyclists were lumped into pedestrians.

All my opinions might be incorrect here, but when moving for work there's a limited time to decide what to do and why. I opted to retire early and live in the land of higher taxes, reasonably courteous drivers, bike lanes, and bike trails everywhere...with more being built.

Originally Posted by fishboat

Several years back I was offered an all-expenses paid work transfer to the Charlotte area. They'd buy my home here, give me another chunk of cash to cover expenses at the Charlotte end. I visited Charlotte a number of times for work and looking at homes/areas. Nice enough area (I was there mostly in late summer and fall). Climate (as I sit here at -7F outside) is certainly milder than Wisconsin.

I declined the move. About 50% of the reason I declined was a nagging feeling I'd die cycling the roads. So much traffic on narrow-no bike-lane roads. Everyone rushing around as they're late due to the traffic. A joke there(as related by a local) was if you're having a slow day you can always grab a lawn chair and watch intersections for one-car accidents(I saw two while there). They're racing (an apparently losing battle) building infrastructure to keep up with population growth and cyclists are not even an afterthought...by the look of it at least. Bike trails (non-MTB) are nearly non-existent..but the taxes are low(er). At the time, I read something online that Montana? and South Carolina were tied for leading the nation in pedestrian deaths due to autos..I think cyclists were lumped into pedestrians.

All my opinions might be incorrect here, but when moving for work there's a limited time to decide what to do and why. I opted to retire early and live in the land of higher taxes, reasonably courteous drivers, bike lanes, and bike trails everywhere...with more being built.

Originally Posted by Moe Zhoost

This is morphing into an A&S thread.

Originally Posted by indyfabz

It's not a question of number of this vs. number of that. It's a question of why, in any given instance, one party should be presumed to have been negligent and have to rebut that presumption. That could actually be unconstitutional in the criminal context. But even in the civil context I think it would be the wrong way to go. Initial burden of proof is on the one claiming negligence on the part of another. And yes, I am well aware of the concept of negligence per se. But even there the complainant must establish things beyond "I was hit by a vehicle so it's the vehicle operator's fault unless he proves otherwise." Careful what you ask for. I am an extremely careful driver and have still almost hit cyclists doing really dumb things. I don't think I should have to bear the burden of proving that I was not at fault unless the cyclist can first offer sufficient evidence that I was. Same for a case involving a pedestrian.

Originally Posted by Rajflyboy

As cyclist’s we should conduct risk management for our riding and research roads and drive on roads with 4 wheels first. Figure out better times of the day to ride, etc etc

and even then it’s still very risky

Originally Posted by drlogik

Because of the huge influx of people moving in from up north the streets in Charlotte have become much more dangerous due to the increased traffic congestion and frustrated drivers. They are moving here because our economy has been booming for the last 30 years unabated. The last ten have been totally nuts. I moved out to Scottsdale Arizona in 2011 and back to Charlotte in 2016 and the change was dramatic. The rural areas and farm lands outside of Charlotte are now sub-divisions and shopping centers. Progress, you know....

The riding in and around Charlotte won't get safer over time, it will become more dangerous unless the City and County start cracking down. The Red Light runner situation is abysmal, so is th e speeding. Scottsdale by comparison was a bike riders paradise as were all of the roads outside of the Phoenix metro area. The difference is that Phoenix got really serious about enforcing traffic violations. Riders are also required to burn lights after dark. I used to commute to work on my bike and although traffic was relatively heavy, the drivers generally very courteous and watchful of riders.

In Charlotte I have been contemplating going to the city to petition some changes. I know other riding groups and clubs have already. More is needed as can be attested by this young rider up at "The Lake" area north of the city.

Originally Posted by CoffeedrinkerNC

We are now living in the generation of I'm more important than the rules, I can bend the rules to suit me, but not the other way around. Way to many people are distracted while driving their cars. The police do not have the time or resources to investigate every accident. When the police enforce the rules of the road, people complain they should be spend the time and money on other crimes.

Originally Posted by fishboat

As an indication of relative bike-culture, I found the two following maps interesting (same scale).

Originally Posted by indyfabz

Has a lot to do with the saturation of railroads in the area covered by that first map, highway construction, railroad bankruptcies and the resultant consolidation in the rail industry. The latter resulted a lot more former rights of way that could be turned into trails.

PA is a good example. When Conrail was deeded things like the competing Reading and Penn Central lines along the Schuylkill River from Philadelphia, it no longer needed both. We now have the Schuykill River Trail. The 80+ mile Pine Creek is also the result of a post-Conrail elimination of one of two redundant lines once owned by two competitors The move away from Anthracite Coal also played a role in certain parts of the state, giving us many miles of Lehigh Gorge/D&L Trail.