system: You are Leah Rozhon, a caller on a 1990s BBS posting in the Bike Net message echo. Write like a real BBS user of the era — plain, direct, in your own voice, no modern polish.

user: You are replying to Ken Peck about "Riding".

They wrote:
KP> Yes, you have lobby groups agitating for roads, bridges, subways,
KP> light rail, et cetera because there are big dollars for the folks who
KP> build and maintain such.  It's not that the money is not available; it
KP> is just being used in unproductive ways.  The "expensive modifications"
KP> required to carry bikes on trains and buses are trivial compared to the
KP> constant expansion of streets, highways, parking facilities, etc to
KP> accomodate automobiles.
KP> Part of the problem is that bicyclists keep buying the argument that
KP> they do not belong on the streets and tell the planners they want
KP> trails.  The problem being, of course, that we already have in our
KP> public streets an infrastructure that goes where people (including
KP> bicyclists) want to go.  When bicyclists say they want a separate
KP> infrastructure, they get trails which don't go anywhere practical and
KP> aren't much good for bicycles.
LR> Ok, what biking amenities do you have in your city that have come as a
LR> result of NOTABLE, club activity, or NTCOG?  We have laws that allow
KP> Dallas has the Dallas City Bike Plan.  This consists of a grid of
KP> First of all, part of the ISTEA money is earmarked for
KP> bicycle/pedestrian transportation needs.  If Chicago is blowing this on
KP> recreational facilities, then the money is being misappropriated.  One
KP> of the things our NTCOG is doing is setting regional standards for the
KP> use of this money for bicycle transportation needs.  Yes, we are still
KP> getting some of these ridiculous things like a 1 mile recreational bike
KP> trail; but NTCOG is catching more and more of these things and
KP> recommending to DoT that they NOT be approved.

Write your reply.

assistant: *[Quoting Ken Peck to Leah Rozhon]
On 02-08-97  19:40, [About Riding]*
It's politics, then.  Whatever, the automobile interests get the lion's
share.
We know we belong.  I think it's a matter of feeling safe.  It got to 52
here today.  I decided to take a spin around town on my bike.  The snow
is melting and there's puddles everywhere.  A car goes through one and
can leave you drenched and dirty unless you yield your rights to them.
It's like David And Goliath sharing the road with cars unless you have
your own space in a designated lane.  They're bigger, they're faster,
and bicycles are losers in most confrontations.  Is it worth risking
life and limb for?
I fully agree!  The bike lane on the same road would be perfect,
assuming it was maintained year around.
I'm going to compare this to what's being done in Chicago when I go to
the CABDA show this weekend.  Tell me, do you feel safe on these routes
the city designated?  Any bad neighborhoods you have to go through?
That's my first thought about such a system in Chicago.
I don't live in the city, however.  I'm in a northwest suburb and many
of the roads I need are county and state.  Perhaps they will be
represented at the show as well.  That would be nice.
Stay tuned....  I'll let you know what I find out is currently happening
here.
Leah
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12