I agree with the need for speed. I don't think expecting bike commuter traffic to slow down is a fair ask. The whole point of a primary commuter route is to have a (safe and) fast route. 15 mph is a totally reasonable speed on this path (even in the dark). In order for a speed reduction to reduce the hazard of invisible path users you would have to travel at something closer to 5 mph (this probably means applying the brakes for long stretches going downhill). Just like no one asks to remove lighting on motor vehicle roadways, why is it reasonable to ask bicycle traffic to reduce it's speed by 60-70% on it's primary transportation route? Supporting cycling as transportation has a lot to do with range. When actual speed is reduced (including frequent intersections a la cap city path) your effective travel range is reduced.
I completely agree that the focus has to remain on this being a path that serves transportation needs first and recreation needs second. The current state of the path does not support nocturnal cycling (for transportation). Unlit path users (especially dogs on long leashes) are incredibly hard to see and do create a very hazardous environment when mixed with cyclists traveling at moderate speed. I ride all kinds of surfaces and traffic and riding this primary commuter path in the dark is always nerve racking. No other section of roadway/path in the city feels as dark or as hazardous to me. I'd also like to encourage evaluating hazard and safety differently than we do for motor vehicle traffic. Accidents that involve cyclists and pedestrians have a much higher incidence and severity of injury than fender-benders between cars. While it may be reasonable to rack up a dozen car accidents before making a change at a problematic intersection, I think a different approach is needed for bicycle/ped traffic. A cyclist hit by a car or a pedestrian hit by a bike is a big deal and we should be addressing hazards before they become accidents. A lack of reported collisions does not mean it's safe. The path needs to be lit in order to support cycling as a mode of transportation in Madison. I support it being done with care and consideration to mitigate the negative impacts on neighbors and owls. Grant On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 4:39 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Quoting Eric Sundquist <[email protected]>: > > Amen to that. I was tapping out a similar little speech when this arrived. >> Only thing I'd add to Robbie is that the Bikies list is populated by mostly >> male bike aficianados. For us, the idea of getting a better headlight and >> slowing down is probably fine. >> > > Perhaps. As much as I enjoy biking, sometimes this male bike aficionado > just wants to get home as efficiently as possible. > > > >> Finally, it's interesting that owls and stargazers can put up with 1,000 >> miles of lighted streets, but 3 miles of lighted bike path is a big problem. >> > > Or that no one reverse that argument, and suggests removing all the street > lights from the residential streets. > > I also find it irritating when people imply that the highest and best use > of the SW *Commuter* path should be a park for night creatures. > > -d > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/**listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.**org<http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org> >
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
