Reply to Do red flashing school bus lights apply to cyclists?

Forum Index » Cars and Transportation

Reply to "Do red flashing school bus lights apply to cyclists?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I don’t hate cyclists from my life as a driver. I hate cyclists from how they treat me as a pedestrian.[/quote]

When I ride on the sidewalk, it's because riding on the sidewalk is safer than riding in the road next to cars going 40 mph. It's not good for pedestrians. If there were protected bike lanes, I would ride in those, and it would be better for everyone. Instead of squabbling over the tiny piece of road real estate allocated to all non-motorists, let's re-allocate road real estate from motorists to non-motorists. On every multi-lane road, let's convert one lane each way to a protected bike lane. Then bicyclists and faster wheelchair-users can use in the bike lane, and pedestrians and slower wheelchair-users can use the sidewalk. Win-win.[/quote]
There are not enough cyclists to warrant their own lane. Sorry. [/quote]

There weren't enough drivers driving across San Francisco Bay at the Golden Gate to warrant their own bridge, either.

I hope that you're not the PP who doesn't like bicyclists on the sidewalk.[/quote]
? That's a dumb comparison.  The bridge was built for various reasons, one of which was to create jobs during the great depression. It also enabled *more* cars on the road, not less, like you would get with a dedicated bike lane.

I don't care if you are on the sidewalk, but you'd better watch for pedestrians.  [/quote]

1. Bike lanes are also constructed for many reasons. The point though is that you can't judge potential usage of a bike lane by the number of riders on an existing street. Was 15th street as heavily used by riders as it is now, before the protected bike lane was built?

2. When I need to ride on a sidewalk, I always watch carefully for pedestrian. And yield to them - and if necessary stop and dismount. [/quote]
1. Most of the rounds around the DC area are narrow as it is and has terrible traffic. If you take away a lane for bikes only, that makes traffic worse for the majority of people. If we had all the money in the world, then the best solution is to build bike paths all over.  I'm originally from SF area, and knew a guy who rode his bike all the way from SF to Silicon Valley, using mostly a bike path.  The only place he couldn't use the path was in the center of the city.  And if you have ever been to SF, there is no way to create bike only paths without having to sacrifice road space for cars and street parking.

2. I'm glad you give right of way to pedestrians.[/quote]

A. Many roads in fact have little enough traffic that you can take away one lane and not add major delays even at rush hour.  B.On most others, if you do create delays, its for a fairly short period at peak  C.  On roads where there are already riders taking the lane, removing most of  them from the flow of traffic offsets any added delay  D.  On many roads you can create a bike lane by removing parking (which may have low costs depending on local conditions)  E.  On many roads taking away a lane can reduce speeding and make the road easier to cross, so there are benefits to non cyclists.  F. Getting more people to walk and bike and use transit is a better approach to dealing with congestion

All of these except F are very specific to particular local conditions - IE they vary with every particular road.  That is why discussing this in the abstract makes no sense.  We need to discuss it in the context of the particular street or streets where bike lanes are proposed. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics