Thanks for the replies. I'm glad to know that I'm not just missing
something obvious. :-)
On Sep 5, 2009, at 7:52 AM, [email protected] wrote:
From: Steve Goldstein <[email protected]>
My take: The traffic is so light on this section that it doesn't
matter. I rarely encounter either a car or a bike here, and I don't
think I've ever encountered both. (Disclaimer: I use the path
infrequently. )
I would beg to differ. I pass at least 3 cyclists and 1-2 cars each
time I use the path on weekdays. If it was truly very light, I
wouldn't particularly care either, but it's not, with blind turns,
lots of children (on foot/scooter/bike/whatever), and clueless people
darting out of the pool area without looking.
From: Robbie Webber <[email protected]>
2. "We know it's not right, but we have other things to worry about
right
now, and we'll fix it later."
"Like when someone gets maimed on that stretch...then we'll take it up."
3. "What's the problem? It keeps bicyclists out of the way of
traffic. We
have lots of kids using that route, and I don't want them mixing
with cars."
"Except when they already do. Or collide with other cyclists because
it's too narrow."
4. It's on that side so that westbound bicyclists don't have to cross
turning (one-way) traffic when they need to transition to the Roth
Park
path.
I have to admit that this is actually reasonable, although it alone
doesn't justify the bizarre setup.
6. "We're going to install a path along the RR track anyway, so it's
not
worth fixing right now." (See #2.)
"But we have no idea when that is. Probably after someone is maimed."
7. They don't really wants bicyclists going fast through that area,
or going
through VSH at all, so they make it a pain in the ass to deter us.
Nice
tactic to keep us from using their (property tax-paying) businesses
as well.
Maybe if we told the businesses that we consider it unsafe to get
shop there
we might get more traction.
Maybe we should. Not to mention my employer.
From: "burleigh chorus.net" <[email protected]>
Ah yes, the 'Shorewood Singularity', where bikes are suppose to
magically
jump from one side to the other instantaneusly, violating several
laws of
physics.
I love this name. I'm totally going to use it. :-)
As for which is the 'correct' side, I've always taken the view that
the
rules of the road are reversed for that small stretch. But because
it is
ambiguous, it can cause problems.
Yes, I agree with this view. But the problem is that, as noted, most
people haven't put a lot of thought into what's wrong with the area.
I think that in part the issue is that it leads between two parks,
where people view it as equivalent with a standard footpath, even
though there's a surprising amount of car traffic for such a tiny
road. So people (adults and children both) just casually bike
wherever, oblivious to the fact that they're now going against the
flow of traffic on a regular street which features cars and confused
cyclists.
I'll also send VSH a note, although I'll probably get the same
response I did about a huge pothole at the base of Univ Bay Drive and
University Ave, namely "duh". (I asked them if they'd pay for my soon-
to-be-broken spokes if they weren't going to fill it, given it was
right at a point where a cyclist more or less had to be, given traffic
patterns, etc.
Peace and Prosperity,
Dipesh
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
