From: ed@titipu.resun.com (Edward Reid)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Bike paths (FROM Re: Cycling and Environmentalism)
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 12:03:45 EST(-0500)
Organization: Accuracy, Ltd.
Reply-To: ed@titipu.resun.com (Edward Reid)
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v0

gsurbeck@eng.umd.edu (Gregory D. Surbeck) writes:
> ... I also know that for me to be on a 45 mph rural highway without
> shoulders is dangerous for myself and at least annoying for the people
> behind me.

From what do you know this?  Not from the accident statistics, which show
highways to be as safe for bicycles as for automobiles.  Of course, some
roads are more dangerous than others; when the discrepancy is large, one is
well advised to avoid the more dangerous roads no matter what one's mode of
travel.

As for "people" (presumably you mean automobile drivers) being annoyed by our
presence: some auto drivers will be annoyed by the presence of bicycles, but
that has little to do with whether the automobiles' progress is impeded.  I
have not discovered a rural road where auto drivers are regularly annoyed by
the presence of bicycles.  I have not heard of any surveys or other
instruments which have found such an effect.

If traffic is so heavy as to be significantly impeded by a bicyclist, then
that traffic will be seriously impeded by turning cars, slower car drivers,
and all the other aberrations of normal traffic.  The bicyclist will be a
minor problem for traffic flow in most cases.

> ...  I feel most comfortable in city traffic
> (compared to rural traffic), because the right lane *is* usually wide
> to allow for parallel parking.  I agree with this idea.

Wide right lanes are generally agreed to provide the best facility: unimpeded
progress, objective safety *and* subjective safety for both bicycles and
automobiles, and moderate cost.  But parking lanes do not provide umimpeded
progress or objective safety unless they are unmarked and unused.  Even an
occasional parked car either forces us to change lanes constantly (lowering
our safety) or to wait for breaks in traffic (impeding our progress). 
Time-sharing can work, and prohibiting parking during times when traffic is
busy can help bicycle riders just as it helps automobile drivers.  Note that
this is another case in which improvements to traffic facilities benefit all
road users.

I assume from your wording that you refer to unmarked parking areas.  Riding
in a marked parking lane, of course, subjects us to most of the same dangers,
and some more as well, as riding in a marked bike lane.

> 	But I also use bikeways and even hiker-biker-equestrian
> trails.  I acknowledge their limitations.  *I*, the cyclist, have to
> be the one to break my rhythm when someone lets go of their dog's
> leash.  *I*, the cyclist, have to be the one to swerve when a 
> pedestrian can't walk straight.  That is the price I pay for avoiding
> the traffic when I want to get from point A to B without traffic that
> weighs 2 tons.

Let me summarize:

      Roads feel dangerous to me, so I avoid them
      despite the lack of objective danger.

      Bikeways and paths feel safe, so I use them
      even though I can list and articulate the
      objective dangers.

Now of course any person who claims to live totally by reason is either
inhuman, Victorian, or a liar.  But if, subjectively, we want safety, then it
behooves us to determine, objectively, how to achieve that safety.  The above
silly-gism illustrates how easy it is for our subjective yearning for safety
to lead us into objective danger.

> ...
> To everyone who rides the roads regularly, I ask where you learned to
> ride?  I started in a school parking lot, and after graduating from my
> residential street, I moved to the local paths around a man-made lake.

I learned on residential streets and graduated to ... well, to the next
street.  But eventually, at least by age 11, I was riding 2-1/2 miles to
school, which included two short stretches of busy two-lane road.  I imagine
this early experience is a large part of why I don't feel the dread of
traffic that many bicyclists seem to feel.

Mind you, I still don't enjoy riding in heavy traffic; I would much prefer to
be on a quiet, shaded road where I can hear the birds.  If you prefer paths
for this reason, separate that from the question of safety.

> People walked on them everyday, but somehow, that wasn't a problem for
> a 6 year old who had only been riding for a short while.

Again, subjectively no problem.  The hard facts, though, are that children
are at more risk, objectively.

> If you read carefully, you'll see that "pure" roadies, those that train on
> roads, not paths, don't really disagree with the concept of bikeways.  They
> [bikeways] just don't realistically work for competitive cyclists.

Bikeways also (for reasons that others have pointed out) don't work at all
for commuters, utility cyclists, bicycle tourists, and many recreational
riders.  Even those recreational riders who enjoy bike paths are often
unnecessarily endangered by those very paths, and their potential pleasures
are diminished when bikeways deflect attention and funds from roadway and
educational improvements which could help them enjoy a much wider variety of
bicycling pleasures.

> ...  To many, [bicycling] is recreation.  The problem is that, in making a
> good point, the "pure" roadies seem to attack the idea of bikeways.  If you
> don't like them, then stay off them.  Which is what you do, I'm sure.  And I
> hate to end this note on a cliche but, can't we just all get along? :O)

Are you kidding?  This is the *Usenet*!  Fights are more fun for all. ^^^ (oh)

Several reasons justify addressing the problems rather than ignoring them:

  1) Bikeways are used to justify bypassing critical improvements in other   
  facilities.

  2) What little visibility bicycling has in our public education systems     
     is mostly oriented to training children *not* to learn to cycle. 
     Bikeways help to perpetuate this miseducation.

  3) Bikeways lead to a public perception that bicycles do not belong on the  
     roads.

  4) Many of those who understand the (objective) dangers feel a
     responsibility to help protect those with less experience.

---------------
btw greg, did you receive my email regarding bike clubs?  I got no ack or nak,
and email isn't reliable enough to make assumptions.  It's unrewarding
(subjectively) to put time into writing a reply and not know whether it
arrived.

Edward Reid  (8*}>
  eel:   ed@titipu.resun.com  or  nosc.mil!titipu.resun.com!ed
  snail: PO Box 378/Greensboro FL 32330
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc