This discussion has illustrated legitamate pros and cons of both options. Instead of stickling to strictly one or the other, I would hope that our transporation planners would select the best option for the situation.
The primary objection to on-street facilities (bike lanes) is the safety issue - not because they are inherently unsafe, but because of the careless, reckless behavior of motorists (and admittedly, to a lesser degree, that of bicyclists). Resolving this objection should not come from the engineering budget. It should come from the public safety budget. The police department should specifically target the illegal behavior of motorists that endangers bicyclists. We shouldn't be spending our transporation dollars trying to work around bad behavior. -- ===== darin ---- Doug Adler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't have a problem with seaparate bike paths; I wish they were > everywhere. If it didn't add two miles to my commute I'd use them every > day. But here are some downsides: > > 1) they can always be taken away if rail lines are reactivated > > 2) They often don't go where you want to. > > If not built on rail lines, they will have lots of road crossings, which > leads to the next several: > > 3) The concrete ramps/joints at intersections are just plain nasty on a > road bike unless you slow to a crawl > > 4) You have to slow down and yield (or stop) at every street crossing in > places where there are lots (like the Isthmus path, where you'll see > many bikers using Willy St instead) > > 5) If the path is right along a road, it's VERY dangerous at > intersections AND you have to weave around the cars stopped in the crosswalk > > 6) In winter many roads are kept in much better shape than some paths, > and they don't have big piles of plowed snow running across them at > intersections > > 7) Numerous studies show that the more bikes are on the streets, the > safer it is for bikes as motorists get used to them. If we're all off > on isolated paths that's not going to happen, so we are all less safe on > those occasions when we do need to be on the road. > > They both have their pros/cons - they are both compromises and one is > not inherently better than the other. > > -Doug Adler > > > > > John Martin wrote: > > > While I see the utopian vision of co-existing on the same roads with > > cars, I still believe separate paths are a better option. Yes, there > > is danger at every road crossing, but there's great peace of mind > > between them. > > > > My problem with bike lanes is: > > > > 1) they can always be taken away (as evidenced on South Park Street > > after the St. Mary's redo; > > > > > 2) they're routinely ignored or double-parked in (see the photo in > > the recently-sited NYT article, or just about any bike lane on any > > block in NY); > > > > > 3) in winter, the "shared" bike/parking lanes get filled with snow in > > the winter so cars park farther away from the curb and force bikes > > into traffic; > > > > 4) in winter, a spill on a bike path is usually between the rider and > > the ground; in a bike lane it's between the rider, the ground, and > > nearby drivers whose windows are rarely de-iced. > > > > Is there a clear argument for bike lanes that addresses these > > problems? Or am I off-base with them? > > > > thanks, > > John > > _______________________________________________ > > Bikies mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
