🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <NEWTNews.6977.805832583.heather@madrone.com>,
Heather Madrone  <heather@madrone.com> wrote:
>
>In article <3u77p9$9uv@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, <de@ucolick.org> writes:
>> Yet the car drivers roar as loudly on the net -- and in social
>> gatherings -- as the bike riders, when each complains about
>> the other's road manners.  Hard to figure -- the worst that
>> even a whole gang of neon-clad hard-core cyclists can do is make
>> the car driver a few seconds later than he/she planned.
>
>The worst thing that an irresponsible bike rider can do is to swerve
>out in front of a car and get killed.  
    there is another potentially worse scenario, where the irresponsible
bike rider causes the driver to serve into an innocent 3rd party...

>I once hit a dog who merrily ran out in front of my car.  Fortunately,
>the dog was okay, but I was shaken up for days.  I frown a lot at
>irresponsible dog owners who let their animals run free on the streets.
>Dogs just aren't smart enough to share the roads with cars.
    sad but true.  and yet, i see a lot more roadkilled CATS than dogs, so
i guess they're not smart enough either.  not to mention birds, squirrels,
skunks, snakes, possums, deer.  none of them is smart enough to run free.
and not too long ago (:-) someone reported a child was hit by a car,
an all too common occurrence.  it appears that no one is "smart enough" to
safely share the road with cars.  what's wrong with this picture?
    one could with equal validity describe this situation as being that,
it is the cars (and the current road system designed for cars) that are
"not smart enough" to share with everyone (and everything) else.

>I used to ride my bike as transportation.  Many roads just plain aren't
>safe for bicyclists, no matter how careful they are.  Others are safe,
>but only if the bicyclist is constantly aware that these huge metal
>boxes moving on the same roads at high speeds can be lethal.
    but roads can be made safer for bikers...

>I'm all in favor of real bike paths rather than forcing bicyclists to
>share space with parked cars or be forced onto the shoulder of the
>road.
    ... eg, by removing the parking.

    one difficulty with "real bike paths" is that bikes need to go to
almost all the same places as cars do.  it is physically impossible
to create separate bike paths to all those places, unless you are willing
to sacrifice *car* access. (:-)
    in practice, bike paths (like pedestrian paths) often require
awkward detours because of the underlying assumption that everything must
be designed to optimize the safety and convenience of the cars.
    and since there is no comprehensive network of separate bike paths, at
some point the bikes always have to rejoin the "car" roadway system.  these
intersections can be a serious hazard.
    another problem with bike paths is poor maintenance.  here in santa
cruz, the river levee is a good example of a poorly maintained bike path.
since cars don't use it, fixing it isn't a priority.  (i know, there is
another reason, the upcoming levee work.  but the point is still valid:
bike paths don't have as high a priority for maintenance.)
    or when the bike path has to be shared with pedestrians, it can become
a safety hazard.  west cliff drive for example.
    these are only some of the problems with bike paths.  since you're
a former cyclist, none of these things is really news to you.  but in
order to have a meaningful discussion, some specific points had to be made.
    IMHO, a "real bike path" is the best compromise in some cases.  but it
is not realistic to hold up "bike paths" as a substitute for sharing
the road, *unless* you are willing to make things a lot more difficult for
cars.  eg, eliminating car access to a lot of places, or making cars detour
or go slower.  instead of inconveniencing everyone else so that cars can
go fast and directly to wherever.
    or maybe that's what you meant?  if you're designing a city from
scratch, or if you're doing a major rebuild.  then maybe bikes wouldn't have
to share with cars.  in a utopian city, perhaps the roadway system would
consist of a general network of bikeways and pedestrianways, plus a few
carefully chosen "car paths" tacked on for specific purposes.  rather than
the other way around.  that is not too unrealistic, there are places where
it's been tried.  but i don't think it will happen here in santa cruz in the
near future.  therefore i don't think "real bike paths" are a realistic
general alternative to sharing the road, here in santa cruz.

>Cars and bikes don't make good bedfellows.
    why stop there?  cars don't make good bedfellows with anything that's
alive, anything that's part of the natural world.

--- don fong, speaking for myself only