I think we are lumping two different types of cycling routes together to some
extent. Peter has pointed out Intersections are where most accidents occur, (and
that paved shoulders should not be relied on as "bike lanes"). This is because
Intersections are where everyone has to watch what they are doing or will run into
each other, cyclists included. Personally, I like bike lanes on long stretches of
road, such as Hunt Club Road ("Arterial" routes), but I think they are of little
value in downtown areas where traffic is slower and intersections are far more
numerous. Bikes can normally keep up with the speed of the traffic.
Something that annoys me about some bike lanes in the region, such as at Hunt Club
and Richmond Road is that the bike lane comes to a sudden and complete "END". There
are no signs indicating a lane is ending, such as a regular traffic lane, nor signs
warning cyclists to MERGE with traffic nor to motorists to watch for merging
cyclists. Also, the presence of a bike lane should NOT be mandatory for cyclists.
They should be viewed as just another lane, only reserved for cyclists. The reason
for this is to allow cyclists approaching intersections to move into the left lane
so that they can make a left turn, for example. I think that if a paved shoulder on
a road designated as a "bike route", or where a bike lane ends, it should be signed
to warn both cyclists and motorists that they have to merge until either the lane
or shoulder starts again.
The one concern I have about designating routes as "cycling routes", the same as
bike lanes, is the risk that others will try to force us to use them. My view is
that we should resist any attempt to limit cyclists access to roads. On residential
roads this is not a problem, but it is on arterial roads where we are often viewed
by selfish motorists as impeding traffic.
So to use Regional Road 10 as an example, if it is designated a "cycling route",
all points where paved shoulders end should be signed as "bikes merging" to warn
motorists to watch for cyclists and cyclists that they have to merge with the
traffic. Such a designation will also pressure governments to pave the shoulders to
accommodate both cyclists and motorists - cyclists can ride in peace and motorists
will be less likely to be slowed down to get around cyclists where there is no
shoulder/bike lane. The rolling hills along there can make for a stressful trip.
Without paved shoulders, a motorist could come flying over one of the hills only to
be confronted by a bike and have to swerve to avoid it if he is going too fast to
break in time.
Intersections are always going to be problem areas simply because all forms of
traffic have to "interact" and be extra-careful.
My two cents worth.
-Rod Plunkett
------
To unsubscribe, send a blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Club Office: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web/mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cyberus.ca/~obcweb
Newsletter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cyberus.ca/~obcweb/Newsletter
==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aVxiDo.a2i8p1
Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This email was sent to: [email protected]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
