http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051001...s_051001131528
It's very encouraging to see these numbers, to see that a great deal of americans are looking for alternative modes of local transport. I am however a bit dissapointed over the federal government's paltry 3.5 million for bike paths. I'd think that bike paths would be a bigger priority, but I guess not.
Of course, the (mostly conservative) argument against federal funding of bike paths is that they don't serve a federal purpose, unlike highways. Bike paths are almost by definition a local concern (e.g. one doesn't typically bike from one state to another, and even in cases when it does happen, it doesn't serve an economic purpose). I didn't read the linked article, but I suspect that most federal funding for bike paths could be filed under "pork barrel." I'm not saying that I agree with this line of reasoning, but this would be the classic conservative argument.Originally posted by hitchhiker
Ok, this is where is gets crazy. Hold on:
I ride a bicycle for a variety of reasons. Tonight I rode on a multiuse path (MUP) with my wife who isn't ready for traffic - yet. But if I'm going somewhere like a friends house, doing a 15 to 20 mile fitness ride, or trying to grab a gallong of milk I ride the road. In my humble opinion we need to be teaching a crazy concept called vehicular cycling. This crazy concept asks bicyclists to obey the rules of the road and to act like cars. I've ridden a bunch of miles in redneck land. I know that if I hold my ground and cycle like a car drives I'm safer. MUP's are great training grounds. But we need to educate people that bikes are part of the transportation mix and that screwing with a bicyclist while driving your car will get you jail time. We also need to lisence, tag and regulate all users of the public roads. If you want to cycle on a MUP then more power to you. But if you want to cycle to the grocery store on the public roads you need to be trained, capable, and responsible.
Bike lanes are accidents waiting to happen.
Same Road, Same Rules, Same Rights, Same Responsibility.
Viva La Velolutionaries!
Additional Crazyness: I believe that constructing roads where things like retail shopping, government offices and public facilities that are only accessible by car is fundamentally wrong and unfair. I'm not saying every government should have to ensure a sidewalk is constructed on every road, but the presumption should be that all people have a right of SAFE pedestrian access to all places in the municipality. We also need to have minimum standards for sidewalks. If you can't put a safe sidewalk on the site well, then you don't need to build do you? Now that's talking some serious smack for a conservative.
Oh, and more people on bicycles is a good thing, mostly. There are downsides we can discuss, but overall it is a good thing.
Last edited by el Guapo; 02 Oct 2005 at 9:29 PM.
el Guapo is a former 20 year +/- urban planner (just like you) who thought becoming an attorney was a good life choice.
The flaw in that line of reasoning is that most traffic on federal roads is also local. I don't know the percentages but I'd be willing to guess that the breakdown between intrastate/interstate traffic on federally funded roads is something like 3:1. The fact that "interstate" highways widen dramatically in populated areas shows the argument is rubbish.
If federal roads had been designed in the spine/spur model instead of point to point, federal money might not be the primary means of building roads for local traffic.
Glad to hear bike sales are going up.Ok, this is where is gets crazy. Hold on:
I ride a bicycle for a variety of reasons. Tonight I rode on a multiuse path (MUP) with my wife who isn't ready for traffic - yet. But if I'm going somewhere like a friends house, doing a 15 to 20 mile fitness ride, or trying to grab a gallong of milk I ride the road. In my humble opinion we need to be teaching a crazy concept called vehicular cycling. This crazy concept asks bicyclists to obey the rules of the road and to act like cars. I've ridden a bunch of miles in redneck land. I know that if I hold my ground and cycle like a car drives I'm safer. MUP's are great training grounds. But we need to educate people that bikes are part of the transportation mix and that screwing with a bicyclist while driving your car will get you jail time. We also need to lisence, tag and regulate all users of the public roads. If you want to cycle on a MUP then more power to you. But if you want to cycle to the grocery store on the public roads you need to be trained, capable, and responsible.
Bike lanes are accidents waiting to happen.
Same Road, Same Rules, Same Rights, Same Responsibility.
Viva La Velolutionaries!
Additional Crazyness: I believe that constructing roads where things like retail shopping, government offices and public facilities that are only accessible by car is fundamentally wrong and unfair. I'm not saying every government should have to ensure a sidewalk is constructed on every road, but the presumption should be that all people have a right of SAFE pedestrian access to all places in the municipality. We also need to have minimum standards for sidewalks. If you can't put a safe sidewalk on the site well, then you don't need to build do you? Now that's talking some serious smack for a conservative.
Oh, and more people on bicycles is a good thing, mostly. There are downsides we can discuss, but overall it is a good thing.
eG, that looks like a good book - I might buy a copy. I wholeheartedly agree with your 2nd paragraph. Personally, I would like to ride in the road more but often feel I would have to move at an unsafe speed to keep from pissing cars off with threats to run me over. But I agree that bike lanes seem a poor alternative. I confess to being an idealist. My view is that cars should be banned or have only restricted access to urban areas above a certain threshold of density. Traffic lights are really only needed for vehicles that travel in excess of 25-30 miles per hour. If cars were near to non-existent in urban areas, bikes could just slow at intersections to watch for crosstrafic.
I understand that if bikes stop at red lights, cars will be more likely to view them as legitimate users, but too often, red lights waste bike momentum. Traffic lights make me feel like I have to travel faster than is safe when green and then waste my momentum and come to a complete stop often when there is no crosstraffic at all. This alternating between say 25mph+ and 0 is annoying and less safe IMO, than if traffic consisted mostly of bicyclists averaging about 10-20 mph. At this speed interval bikes can slow to a safe speed at intersections without killing their momentum needlessly.
But alas, this is America and cars are still king. I've been shoping for a 7-speed internal hub gear, dutch style utility bike, but most of these are sold in Europe. IMO, US bike culture has been steered toward a bunch of spandex wearing, bike helmeted fitness freaks on insane 27-speed derailleurs pretending to be Lance Armstrong biking at 40mph+ on isolated country/mountain roads for a few hours on the weekend who then pack it up on their Thule hood racks and drive back to their suburban hellhole. Whatever happened to nice simple reliable low-maintenance bicycling for everyday errands, commuting and socializing over short to medium distances (0-5 miles) in an urban area?
I mean, I can ride in the street, but when the light turns green - feeling like I have to accelerate as fast as possible so as not to waste a second of the precious time of some lard ass in their SUV or sportscar using fossil fuels behind me, just kills the whole joy of bicycling. Bike helmets are just a kowtow to autocentrism IMO, creating the illusion of safety, making you travel at faster/more unsafe speeds than you otherwise would. Any other Cyburbians share these sentiments? Or if you disagree, please set me straight.
Last edited by dobopoq; 03 Oct 2005 at 5:16 AM.
I'm not a big fan of Forester. He makes some good points but ignores the fact that bicycles are very different vehicles than automobiles. Forcing a bicyclist to follow all rules that cars must follow is both impractical (try pulling yourself from a stop every 16th of a mile along some of Chicago's roads because of all of the stop signs), illogical (only a spandex-encased speed freak would actually be going fast enough on his bike to not have adequate time to ensure that the intersection is safe without stopping), and sometimes dangerous. For instance, bikes should mostly stay on the road but sometimes conditions that are safe for a car are very dangerous for a bike. Forcing bicyclists to ride across the slick metal grates of the road bed of Chicago's bridges rather than taking the sidepath during a rain storm is practically condemning them to nasty injury.
Claiming that bikes and cars are equal because they have the same laws (which isn’t even true, ever try to take your bike on an expressway?) is like claiming that there is equality for a handicapped person because he has just as much legal right to go up the stairs as anyone else. The laws and government need to recognize and accommodate the difference between the modes.
That's interesting. Those thigns are all over the place in this town. Ever thought about getting an old Schwinn? My old dahon folder has an internal hub like that too. Of course a derailleur would be very bad on a folder. Interestingly, I carried it up to Milwaukee on the train with me last week end and there were some french tourist women on the train who were amazed with it. I figured they'd be all over the place in Europe.
I don't feel like that... the louder they honk the slower I go.feeling like I have to accelerate as fast as possible so as not to waste a second of the precious time of some lard ass in their SUV or sportscar using fossil fuels behind me,
I completely agree. I don't think bikes should ever be on the streets with cars... it is entirely too dangerous. It's also pretty frustrating when an entire lane of traffic is backed up due to someone riding 15 mph on a bicycle. That's a good way to get yourself killed.
Bicycles should be accomodated but should not share the road with cars.
To discuss the recent modifications to your mountain/road bike at the cooler with co-workers and brag about the quality of your ride to workBeing in South Florida, I'd have to quadruple my life insurance and write a will before attempting to ride a bike to work
“The way of acquiescence leads to moral and spiritual suicide. The way of violence leads to bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers. But, the way of non-violence leads to redemption and the creation of the beloved community.”
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
- See more at: http://www.thekingcenter.org/king-ph....r7W02j3S.dpuf
Um, I never said that, and that doesn't fit my analogy either. Do you think handicapped people shouldn't be allowed on the sidewalk? The fact is that surface streets are for more than just moving cars. People live on those streets and they need to carry a variety of different types of users. That automobile drivers are the most numerous, and are also large and dangerous, does not mean that they deserve exclusive rights and everyone else can go **** themselves. In fact what needs to happen is that all users of the road need to understand that it will be shared by all and be willing to accommodate each other.
Dobopoq, damn right I agree. Carfree cities would be the best solution, but until that happens I don't feel much of an obligation to obey certain rules of a road that is designed for and dominated by cars. As for stopping at red lights - (1) I can see and hear crosstraffic much better than a motorist, (2) If I crash into a car, nobody gets hurt except me (3) Drivers are wrapped in their climate-controlled air-freshened bubbles, where they don't have to breathe the filth and carcinogens they are spewing into the air; I owe it to my lungs to stay as far from the vehicles as possible, and keep my respiration as slow as possible - much easier if you ride through the lights they are idling at. (4) Repeated standing starts increase strain on your knees, and risk of injury.
If I could have a whole lane at 10-15 MPH without any cars trying to squeeze past me, I might be persuaded to stop at red lights - but for now I consider it a matter of safety and health (not just convenience) to run red lights and commit certain other offenses while on a bicycle.
Having said all that, Guapo makes some good points - overall he's probably a lot more competent in traffic than I am, and I don't doubt there's plenty for me to learn in that dimension.
Sorry for misunderstanding you.
While it would be nice for streets to accomodate all means of transportation, the fact is that they don't. They are completely designed for automobile use (except for newer improvements that include bike lanes, etc.) My point is that streets are not safe for bicycles in the current state and you'd have to have a death wish to bike down a major street during rush hour traffic in ANY American city.
I also see some extremist attitudes on here about "death to the cars". Bikes are neat but on a rainy/icy day they aren't such a great thing.
Au contraire, only in the past half century have road improvements been made with the automobile exclusively in mind. In Chicago the first roads were paved for use by ... bicycles. I agree that some of the suburban collector roads are death traps for anyone who doesn't have four tires and a half ton of steel surrounding them (and even then...) but even with all of the suburban development out there that doesn't comprise the majority of the right of ways in this country.
Only if you don't have the right equipment.Bikes are neat but on a rainy/icy day they aren't such a great thing.
It's good to hear that bike sales are up, but many Americans live in places that bike commuting/errand running is quite hard and dicouraging.
As for bikes sharing the road with cars, I find it perfectly acceptable. I ride on the road whenever I bike, because in some Citys biking on the sidewalk is prohibited. As a pedestrian in a active, walkable urban location, I feel less safe when people bike on the sidewalks, because the sidewalk is a much less predictable traffic environment than the street, plus some sidewalks in Chicago can barely handle two pedestrians walking side-by-side.
I ride on the street always, but then I may be a more confident/experienced bicyclist than the typical bike owner.
99.9% of drivers don't want to hit you. Keep this in mind.
I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?
Every day is today. Yesterday is a myth and tomorrow an illusion.
Funny you mention that because I was reading an article about the traffic-calming effects of narrow streets on on-street parking. Seems that wide roads with no on-street parking were much more dangerous for pedestrians while on-street parking tends to slow traffic down considerably. The scary truth is that most Americans are more afraid of hitting another car than they are of hitting an actual person
Yes, on-street parking in a wonderfully practical form of traffic calming, but I was referring to drivers not wanting to hit bicyclists that are on the street.Funny you mention that because I was reading an article about the traffic-calming effects of narrow streets on on-street parking. Seems that wide roads with no on-street parking were much more dangerous for pedestrians while on-street parking tends to slow traffic down considerably. The scary truth is that most Americans are more afraid of hitting another car than they are of hitting an actual person
I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?
Every day is today. Yesterday is a myth and tomorrow an illusion.
Sorry, I've been moving and haven't slept much. I should've also added that from what I've seen, people are less afraid to hit a cyclist (as well as pedestrian) than another car.
There is truth to this. FWIH, in many collisions between cars and bicyclists, there is no prosecution of the driver - presumeably because no insurance company was involved on behalf of the bicyclist.
Here is a brief article on the growing tensions between drivers and bicyclists in Beijing, China: http://www.energybulletin.net/9476.html
But I agree with jordan, in that many of our roads can and should be shared, but the users need to accomodate each other. It shouldn't be autocentric or bikecentric.
If I run through a red light at 10mph to check for crosstraffic, I'm actually helping the drivers behind me, because if I come to a complete stop, my longer acceleration time is going to slow them down a bit. I don't think bicyclists should feel as though if they run a red light, they don't deserve respect from cars. Unless I see a police car, I frequently run red lights, but only if I can easily cross the intersection well in advance of crosstraffic without speeding up.
Two-way streets are much more bike friendly. To expect a bike to always stay in the direction of traffic and be willing to frequently go a block in the wrong direction just to get to a street that lets them ride in the direction they want, is ridiculous. It again ruins the much higher utility and efficiency of a bike in an urban area, when compared to a car.
Really jordanb do you have to always disagree with everything I write?
But in reality, I find that I can bike on almost every road in my town that has a 30 to 35 mph speed limit and no shoulder. Once the speed limit gets to 55 to 65 it has to have good shoulder or I don't ride there. Hoverver, unlike my pal jordanb, I'm not bikiing in an urban center. Suburbia provides plenty of wide 30 mph roads that are very cycleable. They connect to almost everywhere in town. Any experienced vehicular cyclist will tell you that you don't transportation cycle like you drive. You pick different routes and ride accordingly.
Just Ride.
el Guapo is a former 20 year +/- urban planner (just like you) who thought becoming an attorney was a good life choice.
Nooooooooo!!! The "L" word should be banned from the earth. Everyone in Austin is tired of him. Take off those damned yellow bracelets, too
I spent 5 years on our local transportation board fighting for bike facilities, and on two or three occasions, we LOST because one or two commissioners had just had a run-in with stop-sign-running or red-light-running cyclists like you.
Hint: The argument you use above could apply to drivers too. Why wait at a red light when there's no (apparent) traffic coming? Why not run it, and give the guy behind you less time to wait?
You're not helping ANYBODY with this crap; cyclists least of all. Obey the law.
That's not it at all. Forester is a highly contentious issue among the "cycling community" in cities like New York and Chicago, possibly precisely because he was thinking about suburban riding while he was writing. I agree with you on a few points though:Really jordanb do you have to always disagree with everything I write?
- Bicyclists should follow the rules of the road as much as possible. The only issues arise when rules which were clearly meant for cars tend to make it difficult to bike.
- Bicyclists deserve to be on the surface roads and cars drivers should accommodate them just as they have to accommodate busses and slow-moving trucks. The fact that bikes aren't bigger than them does not give them a pass to become aggressive.
- I generally see bike paths to be a bad thing, except in a few circumstances, for true "transportation" rather than recreation riders. I have seen in my own city conditions for bicyclists improve as the number of bikes on the road increase and car drivers get more used to them.
- For the record, I stop at all red lights with the exception of two along Milwaukee at T intersections where I don't cross the path of the oncoming road. I treat stop signs as "yield" signs and stop only if there are people who have the right to go ahead of me on the cross street.
I think the only companies selling city bikes (that i'm aware of) in the US are Schwinn and Raleigh - both of which are pretty popular here in Amsterdelphia.
Most of the time I ride my 10-speed road bike. I took the 10-speed handlebars off and replaced them with a straight and narrow mountainbike style set complete with mtn. bike style handbrakes and thumb shifters.
I had an old schwinn 5-speed that I put a rack on, sometimes strapped a milk crate to it, and could carry almost anything with it. It weighed a ton, though. Luckily it's really flat here so weight isn't that much of an issue and having more than 5 gears is superfluous. Unfortunately it was stolen back in August.
I still have a newer schwinn three-speed with internal gearing. It's a lot lighter than the 5-speed but i'm not a fan of the hub. I'm thinking about getting rid of it and turning it into a 5-speed. I'm not putting any racks on it. It's too nice of a bike. It's what i ride when i'm not in a hurry or when i get dressed up.
Fixed-gear track bikes are pretty popular among the bike nerds. The more stripped-down and lighter the better. I wouldn't mind them so much but sometimes i just like to stop pedaling.
There are bike lanes here where the streets are wide enough for them but more often than not they become parking for trucks making deliveries - or on 11th St. they become a travel lane for people who don't want to drive on the trolley tracks.
For distances under 2 miles here cars have no speed advantage - it's difficult to drive faster than 20 MPH on most streets around here. I only feel unsafe riding in traffic when the cars are moving a lot faster than i am or when i'm riding in a place where people are completely unfamiliar and often downright hostile with seeing anything in the road that doesn't have a motor.
My point is that because bikes are so much smaller and are far less dangerous to people, other bicycles and expecially cars, they shouldn't be subject to the same rules as cars. Bikes aren't allowed on freeways rightfully so, so when cars are in a dense urban area, shouldn't they be willing to follow different laws than the more appropriately scaled bicycle?
I ride like I walk. When I'm at a corner, if I don't see anything coming anywhere near, I'll cross even though the sign says don't walk. I'll often j-walk to get to something on the opposite side of the street, when I'm in the middle of the block, and because doing so when there's no traffic is more efficient than going to an intersection and waiting through the light cycle. Traffic lights are IMO, autocentric and would be unecessary were it not for cars.
Having said all this, I am quite open to changing my behavior if the rationale of arguments I read on this thread make sense to me.
Then motorists have the right to be pissed off at you and treat you with disrespect. There's no logical reason for you to treat them as yield signs which couldn't also justify motorists doing the same thing.
1. If you want cars to respect the rules of the road, such as merging behind you when they're turning right; you need to do so too, or work to get them changed (and obey them in the meantime).
2. While I was driving near UT one day a couple of years ago, a cyclist ran a stop sign right in front of me. In order not to hit him, I swerved, and nearly hit another car. If I HAD hit that other car, and injured myself or the other driver, wouldn't that other cyclist have caused our injuries?
3. I already gave you an example of why this selfish arrogant know-it-all attitude is damaging to the interests of cyclists in general. Here's another: Every time the issue of cycling on roads comes up around here, a bunch of knuckle-dragging neanderthals come out of the woodwork complaining about cyclists who run red lights and stop signs. Because cyclists really do all of those things in large numbers, moderates in those discussions often give the neanderthals points, and the political center moves towards the cyclist-hating drivers.
Last edited by NHPlanner; 04 Oct 2005 at 4:47 PM.
Firstly, unlike cars, I don't have 300 horsies pulling me from a stop every 200 feet. I accelerate with my own sweat. Secondly, those stop signs were put in to try to keep all of those auto drivers with a cell phone in one hand and a cigarette in the other from running over grandma as she crosses the street to get to the bus stop. They wouldn't be there if the road wasn't full of cars, and to adhere to all of them on a bicycle would make biking very difficult.
I think grandma would be thankful that I was riding a bike through her neighborhood instead of polluting her air yet more and making her road yet more dangerous by driving yet another car through it.
By the way, are you honestly saying that automobile drivers have the right to jeopardize my life with aggressive driving because I don't bother stoping at stop signs when I have the right of way anyway?
