From: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles
Subject: Re: Bike Paths/Lanes
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:08:13 GMT
Reply-To: byer@adobe.com (Scott Byer)
Distribution: na
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

Nathan Hult writes

> In your article [JF's] you state you are against bike
> paths. I disagree however that a bike path can't be
> designed to be "safe" and capable of riding at speeds
> greater than 20 miles per hour.

The point isn't that one or two safe bike paths can be
designed - it is *possible*.  Just not in general.  And
that's where the danger lies.  Bike paths are often sold
as a general mechanism for making bike travel more safe,
when -in general - they are much more dangerous.

> I live in Portland, Oregon.  There are a few off road
> "Bike Paths," however they are not designed for any kind
> of speed on the bike, plus they are filled with walkers
> and runners.    I never ride on these "Bike Paths."

And if we let the politicians sell us this kind of bike
path as a solution - which is almost always what they
mean when saying 'bike path' - we are far worse off as
bicyclists, aren't we?

[Two examples of good bike paths deleted...]

Realize, that doing such good bike paths is not possible
everywhere.  L.A. has the flood control system out of
necessity, Seattle actually thought about bicycles when
they still had space left over to make a reasonable
attempt at a safe bike path.  There are places where such
space just doesn't exist - like here in the south Bay
Area.  You *can't* make a safe bike path down here.

(I'll be happy to eat my words if some politician proves
me wrong.  A safe bike path is one that is 8 ft wide
minimal, bikes only, painted center line, and no unsafe
auto traffic crossings.)

> I much rather ride on a bike lane or a wide shoulder and
> take my chances with people coming out of drive ways,
> intersections,  and making right turns than getting
> plastered from behind by someone driving 55 mph.

This is the least common accident.  Do what you can to
prevent it, but don't let the fear of it stop you from
taking a certain route.

> My preferred bike commuting system would be to have a
> wide shoulder or bike lanes on all major roads in and
> out of the city.  Bike lanes like the one in Anaheim
> would be ideal but also much more expensive to build than
> just widening the major roadways.

I don't like bike lanes sometimes because traffic
designers love to make the bike lanes follow the most
dangerous route through and around some things - like
overpasses (see the thread of about two weeks (?) ago).

The best solution that I have seen is the 'BIKE BOULEVARD'
concept.  A residential street gets designated as a bike
boulevard, and stop signs and lights along that street
are minimized, while auto-traffic barriers are put up
every so often to prevent the inevitable drag racing that
occurs along streets with no stops.  These barriers are
either blockades that are passable by emergency vehicles
only, or 'slow-bumps' - large, flat speed bumps that can
be driven over at 25 mph, no faster (or the car scrapes.)
This is a win-win situation - bicyclists get a roadway
(without bike lanes) with minimal auto traffic, whose
speed limit is about their speed anyway, and the residents
along that street get less auto traffic and a much
quieter, more friendly neighborhood.

This is also a solution - unlike bike paths - that can
be implemented nearly anywhere.  Even here in the south
SF bay area.  The bike boulevard through Palo Alto (which
will be soon extended to be city-limit to city-limit!)
is a wonderful success.

Scott Byer                                   NeXTMail: byer@adobe.com
Adobe Systems Incorporated               These are *my* opinions, and  
1585 Charleston Road, P.O. Box 7900        do not necessarily reflect
Mountain View, CA 94039-7900             the opinions of my employer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles