Am I the only one that doesn't want to share the road with cars? Sure, as a bikee I have a right to those roads, and I do use them , but I hate it. I don't want to breathe car exhaust, I find the experience stressful, and in the event of a bike/car collision, I know I'll suffer the injury. With a bikepath just a block away, I'm all for a narrowed Willy Street.
I want an entirely separate infrastructure of bike-only pathways, everywhere. A girl can dream, can't she? ________________________________ From: burleigh chorus.net <[email protected]> To: Rich Felsing <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Sent: Fri, October 22, 2010 1:36:40 PM Subject: Re: [Bikies] Willy St rebuild at Board of Public Works tonight (Wednesday) Rich, You make a lot of good points. But I'll point out that Midvale, Willy, and in fact all streets do have one thing in common - far too many of the motorists are incapable or unwilling to share the roads with bicyclists. My position has always been that we don't need special facilities for bikes, assuming everyone was familiar with the rules of the road. But that's just an idle fantasy. No one takes seriously the concept that bikes are vehicles that are entitled to an entire lane. Take for example Midvale. With 2 lanes in each directions, who needs an extra lane for bikes? Just ask any of the motorists who've honked or buzzed me for actually using one of those lanes. So sure, build a narrow street, create a wider terrace, thats all nice. But for bicyclists the message will clearly be "use at your own risk, and if something happens its your own damn fault". Because that is the status quo, and nobody is going to try to change that. On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Rich Felsing <[email protected]> wrote: > > As Michael Rewey's recent comment also did in citing Midvale's experience, > in which he quite rigidly and even openly presumed to dictate what width the > road on Williamson should always be, and how narrow it could never be. ("I > stated this morning that it was OK to narrow Willy Street from 48 feet to > 44 feet .. . I was in error [sic]. . . . I ma sure that after the > discussion on Midvale that Darin Burleigh will agree.") Obviously Midvale > and Williamson are two very different streets, carrying different kinds of > traffic, through distinctly different land use contexts -- one's a retail > district, the other residential -- built during different eras, and each > with plainly different pedestrian volumes. So each requires a very > different treatment. > The classic urban street we idolize is functionally dismantled by the > grossly imbalanced cars-same-as-ever-bikes-same-as-cars policy we've had to > live with here. Widening streets to install wider bike lanes cuts out the > heart of New Urbanist practice. > _______________________________________________ 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
