🚀 go-pugleaf

Stephen Lau (lau@ocean.ai.sri.com) writes:
SL>We have sidewalks made for pedestrians, runways for planes, traffic
SL>lanes for cars and bike paths for bikes. Unfortunately there never
SL>seems to be enough sidewalks, runways, bike paths, nor traffic lanes.

SL>We don't see planes landing in traffic (except in emergencies),
SL>most people don't walk in the middle of the street or down the
SL>freeway, cars don't drive down sidewalks or down runways. We do
SL>see, however, bikes on sidewalks and in the traffic lanes. Not enough
SL>bike paths, bike lanes, runways, sidewalks or traffic lanes? Lobby
SL>your local government.

I think a couple of good points are suggested by Stephen's message.
First, California does not have a law that permits a bike path to be
designated for bicycles only.  As a result, even properly designed
bike paths are rendered unsafe and unpleasant by pedestrians strolling
in the middle of would-be bicycle highways.  This is a problem that
should be addressed in the interest of promoting bicycling as a
legitimate transportation choice, with due care to protect the
interests of pedestrians (another legitimate transportation choice).

Second, we are much more likely to acheive environmentally desireable
results if we educate and lobby our government officials as to the
needs and problems of bicycle commuters (and motor vehicle operators)
than if we continue a pissing match over who has the right to the
road.  The bottom line is that the present situation is not
satisfactory to cyclists and non-cyclists alike.  A change is in
order.

In fact, some changes are taking place, and if we don't get involved,
they will probably be worse for our apathy.  Right now there is quite
a bit of public funding going into building bike paths.  In Ventura
County, they are budgeting $2.6 million dollars to construct a
multiple use path connecting the cities of Ojai and Ventura.  Here in
Marin County, my local government is putting up $100K for a
feasibility study of a bike path that would follow an unused railroad
right of way (which might also be devoted to a light rail system).
Examples like this abound, driven in part by ISTEA, the federal
legislation that devotes a fraction of gasoline taxes to such
projects.

The money is going to get spent and the projects will be built.  What
is not clear is whether these new projects will reflect the very real
needs and problems being discussed in this thread.  Unless we--the
transportation dependent Californians--can come to a rough consensus
as to how we would like to promote bicycling as a transportation
alternative, it is unlikely that our governments will be able to
provide much help.  We are the folks who care and who are closest to
the action.  We should make our voices heard where they count.

Toward that end, it would be nice if some of the representatives of
state and national bicycling and environmental organizations that
monitor this conference would step in and encourage a meaningful
discussion regarding the possibilities for steering our governments
toward some pro-bicycle transportation solutions that will be worth
something when they are implemented.  I sit on a League of American
Wheelmen committee, but I am neither an officer nor a staff member,
and I do not speak for L.A.W.

Before I sign off, I want to clarify something.  I have made reference
to (class I) bike paths.  I do not believe these are always the most
appropriate types of bike routes, even when they are properly
designed.  They are, however, an increasingly popular way for our
governments to spend our money, and as such they should be engineered
to provide a safe and effective environment for cyclists to get from A
to B.  Just the same, nothing I have said should be interpreted as
suggesting that bicyclists should retreat from their right to use the
public roadways or their insistence that such roadways be designed
with cyclists in mind.

Enough finger pointing already!  Let's discuss some solutions.  None
of the vehicle codes we are arguing about are handed down from on
high, nor are the various interpretations of those laws.  Our laws and
policies should be changed to meet the demands of the public and not
the other way around.

Todd Ourston (todd.ourston@ggcs.org), Novato, California.
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . todd.ourston@ggcs.org