Originally Posted by alathIN

Man, this is like so many internet arguments.

We need air!
No, you're wrong! We need water!

How about we ride on the roads where that works, develop new infrastructure where we need it, and enforce the laws everywhere?

Originally Posted by B. Carfree

Some people, mostly people who are relatively new to cycling, think we should use the few dollars that can go towards improving conditions for cycling by building a few miles of separated infrastructure and place it mostly on urban roads (with the inevitable intersection failures). Other, more experienced riders, think we would be better served by funding traffic law enforcement and putting in many more miles of proper, six to eight foot bike lanes (not in the door zone) and only putting in separate facilities where there are long stretches of high-speed road without appreciable numbers of intersections.

Originally Posted by B. Carfree

Sounds great. However, we have this little problem that started in California back in '78 with prop. 13. As a result of the four decades long tax revolt it spawned, we're dealing with the ultimate priority issue: there's only so much money in the budget and it's not enough.

Some people, mostly people who are relatively new to cycling, think we should use the few dollars that can go towards improving conditions for cycling by building a few miles of separated infrastructure and place it mostly on urban roads (with the inevitable intersection failures). Other, more experienced riders, think we would be better served by funding traffic law enforcement and putting in many more miles of proper, six to eight foot bike lanes (not in the door zone) and only putting in separate facilities where there are long stretches of high-speed road without appreciable numbers of intersections.

[b]This difference of opinion wouldn't be such a big deal, but many of the segregationists have been making their public case by convincing everyone that cycling is too dangerous to be done anywhere except on a segregated facility. Not surprisingly, this has an impact in terms of how many people are willing to even try riding a bike since there is no way to get anywhere in the US without riding on a road. Oddly enough, these people are called and consider themselves "bicycling advocates". If one were to design a fifth-column assault to keep cycling participation down, it would look just like the pro-separation folks.

Originally Posted by baron von trail

Cyclist requires a $5000 bike and $300 outfit. Bike riders can get by for a lot less.

Originally Posted by Jim from Boston

…Actually, not to raise the usual controversy, IMO when I’m on the bike, I consider myself as an amphibian. Like the biologic species between reptile and fish, I exist as a cyclist and wheeled pedestrian. I obey traffic laws, and respect fellow road-users, but as noted above, I may assume pedestrian privileges, like circumventing traffic by going on to the sidewalk…

Last week I visited the family in Macomb County [Michigan]. IMO, that is some of the nastiest road riding I have ever encountered. The main roads, to get anywhere, are six lane concrete slabs with bumps about every 20 feet, and many cracks and potholes especially on the right, with no shoulders, and heavy, zooming traffic with little patience for (slow) cyclists. Sidewalks alongside are frequently discontinuous, and often non-existent.

Even as an experienced urban commuter, I will often flee to the sidewalks, little used by pedestrians out in suburbia….

Now actually those suburban counties like Macomb and Oakland have developed some nice, long MUPS, but the prevailing attitude seems to be that bikes are not ”real” transportation, so one usually drives to a MUP to ride the bike; and the MUPS are though rural countryside, with no defined, or non-recreational destination…

I used to feel resentful that I was self-relegated off to the sidewalks, but now I accept it as the way it is. I’m a visitor, and must accommodate. To further the evolutionary analogy I am a small furry mammal (cyclist), whose survival depends on avoiding being trampled by the dinosaurs (autos), whose evolutionary pathway may eventually lead to much less ferocious lizards.

Originally Posted by CrankyOne

Just a note that a number of us who support protected bikeways (including through junctions) are current and former Cat 1 and pro racers (with Gary Fisher apparently the latest to join the chorus). Numerous of us have also spent considerable time studying what makes for a good environment for bicycling including study tours in Europe and across the U.S. (and noting that in all of this we have yet to find anywhere that practices bicycle driving to have a good environment nor have painted bikeways proved successful. The only places with any significant amount of bicycling and with relatively safe bicycling are places with protected infrastructure).

Please be careful who you imply are inexperienced.

Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94

Bike racing experience in no way translates to traffic skills. Time on the bike practicing traffic skills gives a cyclist better traffic skills. I believe what @B. Carfree meant by "more experienced riders" is cyclists with more experience riding on public roads, along with other traffic.

Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94

Bike racing experience in no way translates to traffic skills. Time on the bike practicing traffic skills gives a cyclist better traffic skills. I believe what @B. Carfree meant by "more experienced riders" is cyclists with more experience riding on public roads, along with other traffic.

Originally Posted by B. Carfree

we would be better served by funding traffic law enforcement and putting in many more miles of proper, six to eight foot bike lanes (not in the door zone) and only putting in separate facilities where there are long stretches of high-speed road without appreciable numbers of intersections.

Originally Posted by genec

So those racers never take to the roads for training, or ever commute?

My some 50 years of cycling and commuting, touring, and at times, living car free, should qualify me as somewhat experienced... and frankly there are places where no infrastructure is needed, there are areas where lines of paint are enough, and yes, there are places where physically separated infrastructure is highly desirable for all but the bravest/strongest riders (of whom only the smallest % of cyclists qualify).

Originally Posted by mr_bill

In other words - "If you aren't comfortable biking on the roads you should take a class. It will give you confidence."

-mr. bill

Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94

The large majority of cyclists who participate in CyclingSavvy courses are novice and beginner cyclists, and many of them afterwards say things like "wow I never knew I could do it that way, and it's so easy!" Are you going to sit there and dispute the fact that such a class imparts confidence in the participants? I can tell you first hand that it absolutely does.

Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94

Who are you quoting?

Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94

annnd what's your point? If you don't want to try the class, fine with me. But don't judge others who suggest it.

Originally Posted by kickstart

I mostly agree except for limiting segregated ("separate facilities") only to where there are long stretches of high speed road. An example would be how King county is slowly but surely progressing towards connecting the regions network of MUTs, essentially making a cyclist and pedestrian limited access freeway system.
But yes, give me lots of bike lanes please, they don't even need to be "safer", just so I don't need to constantly compete for space on higher speed differential roads.

Originally Posted by genec

To say that funding doesn't exist for cycling infra improvement is a misnomer... monies devoted to "just one more automobile lane" could easily be used to build more cycling infrastructure that could reduce the traffic load on existing roadways, AND encourage healthier lifestyles for the public. But far too many "decision-makers" tend to view the world through motoring eyes while overlooking both the possibilities of walking and cycling as part of the overall transportation picture.

Further, if we really want the public to accept cycling as safe, we need to remove the fear mongering mandatory helmet laws.

Originally Posted by mr_bill

Hey judge, nobody, *NOBODY* knocked anything. Or judged anything. Except for the judge who says don't judge.

-mr. bill

Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94

That's not what I said. Not all bike racers commute, in fact most probably don't, around this area anyway. But frankly I've seen a LOT of racers and "roadie" cyclist do some of the stupidest stuff in traffic.



The large majority of cyclists who participate in CyclingSavvy courses are novice and beginner cyclists, and many of them afterwards say things like "wow I never knew I could do it that way, and it's so easy!" Are you going to sit there and dispute the fact that such a class imparts confidence in the participants? I can tell you first hand that it absolutely does.

Originally Posted by B. Carfree

Are they still building more lane-miles in SoCal? That sort of thing has mostly dried up in many places. Oregon is spending lots of money rebuilding freeways and such, but not adding many more lane-miles. Last I heard, Texas is taking out pavement on many roads and returning them to gravel because they can't afford to maintain the pavement.

That said, you are correct, imo, that the issue is priorities (another word for budgets). In the real world, we can choose a small number of miles of separated facilities or we can have superior connectivity with 6-8 foot bike lanes. Given that choice, I'll take the latter.

Originally Posted by genec

Caltrans however just doesn’t seem to get it... they currently are building a huge new carepool lane project on 805 in the northern area of the city, and the ramps and connections to surface streets pretty much ignore the fact that cyclists exist.

Originally Posted by genec

Good luck on those often high speed, multi-laned urban "freeways." (These are not actual freeways, but due to the speeds, may as well be.)