A United Front

When it comes to bikes as transportation, and infrastructure, I can’t help but feeling that what we need most is a united front.

All you have to do is peruse the comments on bike advocacy forums, or the comments section of Yehuda Moon, to see that we do anything but present a consistent message about what we see as the future of cycling infrastructure.

Its tremendously encouraging when I see the kinds of changes that places like NYC are making, even going so far as physically separating the bike lanes in a place where any road infrastructure changes are tremendously difficult to implement. Or Boulder who recently caught up with Portland on the platinum rating as a bike friendly city.

Bike lanes all by themselves which both of the examples above include, manage to flare up comment wars between “vehicular cyclists” and the rest of the bike transportation folks. I can certainly see the arguments of both sides. Vehicular cycling is learning to make the most of a road infrastructure designed for cars, and honestly much of the time I ride like one of these. But at the same time, just because we’ve had to make the most of a road system meant for cars doesn’t mean it always HAS to be that way, or how bout the fact that no 8 year old kid is going to feel comfortable “taking the lane” or even be able to for that matter.

I think this is one area where I think Portland has got a head start on the other bike friendly communities. There is no wheel to reinvent here they’re acknowledging that. There are and have been for some time now cities where bikes truly are equally billed as transportation, and they’ve been able to successfully get all cross-sections of society out on bikes, not just active males between the ages of 22 and 35.

What do you think, is our message as a group as scattered as it seems to me?

79 Comments

  • Jennifer
    November 13, 2008 - 12:45 am | Permalink

    Most of the problem is that the quiet side streets (which cyclists are always told are safer, no?) are just simply too dang narrow to share. A single cyclist, even one hugging the door zone, can create enough of a bottleneck in these narrow residential labrynths to drive a driver insane with road rage. Where would a separated bike lane go? It would have to replace a parking lane, and some people would give up a kidney before they gave up a parking spot.

    So, I dunno, maybe the vehicular and the facilities people could put up a more united front if we all shook off this notion that busy = unsafe. Seems to me that arterial streets would be the best places for separated bike lanes, especially since many of them already have parking restrictions. So nobody would miss the parking (or if there's already a parking lane, then nobody would miss a traffic lane), cyclists would be able to ride where they actually want to go instead of following some circuitous side-street route through heck knows where, and at night there'd be better lighting and possibly more people afoot for added safety (because traffic isn't the only safety concern that keeps people off bikes).

  • Jennifer
    November 13, 2008 - 7:45 am | Permalink

    Most of the problem is that the quiet side streets (which cyclists are always told are safer, no?) are just simply too dang narrow to share. A single cyclist, even one hugging the door zone, can create enough of a bottleneck in these narrow residential labrynths to drive a driver insane with road rage. Where would a separated bike lane go? It would have to replace a parking lane, and some people would give up a kidney before they gave up a parking spot.So, I dunno, maybe the vehicular and the facilities people could put up a more united front if we all shook off this notion that busy = unsafe. Seems to me that arterial streets would be the best places for separated bike lanes, especially since many of them already have parking restrictions. So nobody would miss the parking (or if there's already a parking lane, then nobody would miss a traffic lane), cyclists would be able to ride where they actually want to go instead of following some circuitous side-street route through heck knows where, and at night there'd be better lighting and possibly more people afoot for added safety (because traffic isn't the only safety concern that keeps people off bikes).

  • Jennifer
    November 13, 2008 - 7:45 am | Permalink

    Most of the problem is that the quiet side streets (which cyclists are always told are safer, no?) are just simply too dang narrow to share. A single cyclist, even one hugging the door zone, can create enough of a bottleneck in these narrow residential labrynths to drive a driver insane with road rage. Where would a separated bike lane go? It would have to replace a parking lane, and some people would give up a kidney before they gave up a parking spot.So, I dunno, maybe the vehicular and the facilities people could put up a more united front if we all shook off this notion that busy = unsafe. Seems to me that arterial streets would be the best places for separated bike lanes, especially since many of them already have parking restrictions. So nobody would miss the parking (or if there's already a parking lane, then nobody would miss a traffic lane), cyclists would be able to ride where they actually want to go instead of following some circuitous side-street route through heck knows where, and at night there'd be better lighting and possibly more people afoot for added safety (because traffic isn't the only safety concern that keeps people off bikes).

  • MikeOnBike
    November 13, 2008 - 10:20 am | Permalink

    Jennifer's comment demonstrates part of the disagreement. Residential road rage?

    More broadly, what seems to define the different viewpoints of cycling is how we view motorists. Are they raging demons who go into kill mode at the mere sight of a cyclist in their path? Or are they just other drivers who happen to be using wider, faster vehicles than us?

    Likewise, is it the job of cyclists to always defer to motor traffic, staying out of their way at all costs, or is it the job of all drivers to treat each other as equals?

    Until we can all agree on our relationship to motorists, it's difficult to be united. The comments above demonstrate both extremes.

    We already have a physically separate network. We usually call them sidewalks, and some cyclists prefer that network. A Class I Multi Use path is just a sidewalk without a parallel road.

  • MikeOnBike
    November 13, 2008 - 5:20 pm | Permalink

    Jennifer's comment demonstrates part of the disagreement. Residential road rage?More broadly, what seems to define the different viewpoints of cycling is how we view motorists. Are they raging demons who go into kill mode at the mere sight of a cyclist in their path? Or are they just other drivers who happen to be using wider, faster vehicles than us?Likewise, is it the job of cyclists to always defer to motor traffic, staying out of their way at all costs, or is it the job of all drivers to treat each other as equals?Until we can all agree on our relationship to motorists, it's difficult to be united. The comments above demonstrate both extremes.We already have a physically separate network. We usually call them sidewalks, and some cyclists prefer that network. A Class I Multi Use path is just a sidewalk without a parallel road.

  • MikeOnBike
    November 13, 2008 - 5:20 pm | Permalink

    Jennifer's comment demonstrates part of the disagreement. Residential road rage?More broadly, what seems to define the different viewpoints of cycling is how we view motorists. Are they raging demons who go into kill mode at the mere sight of a cyclist in their path? Or are they just other drivers who happen to be using wider, faster vehicles than us?Likewise, is it the job of cyclists to always defer to motor traffic, staying out of their way at all costs, or is it the job of all drivers to treat each other as equals?Until we can all agree on our relationship to motorists, it's difficult to be united. The comments above demonstrate both extremes.We already have a physically separate network. We usually call them sidewalks, and some cyclists prefer that network. A Class I Multi Use path is just a sidewalk without a parallel road.

  • Adrienne
    November 13, 2008 - 11:03 am | Permalink

    There is the fact that there is no Amsterdam in the US. The vast majority of us can dream about 'infrastructure', but we are doing it while we are riding in traffic. We all need to behave like 'vehicular cyclists' because that is what we are. These are skills that benefit every person on a bike, even where there is segregation because they are skills that make us all more aware of others.
    As to the child argument. I have been teaching my kids how to ride in San Francisco for the last year. My 14 year old son is now able to ride almost anywhere in the city with confidence, including taking lanes and 'reading' drivers. My 9 year old daughter will not ride on the sidewalk, she recognizes the street is safer. She knows how to stay out of the door zone, how to scan intersections, how to look for reverse lights on parked cars… She is not ready to ride alone across the city, because she is small, but she rides safely with her brother. Both of my kids know how to ride better than many adults I see.
    We all want better space for bikes, but that does not mean that we shouldn't learn how to ride in all situations. The more who do, the better it will get for all on the road or in the bike lane.

  • Adrienne
    November 13, 2008 - 6:03 pm | Permalink

    There is the fact that there is no Amsterdam in the US. The vast majority of us can dream about 'infrastructure', but we are doing it while we are riding in traffic. We all need to behave like 'vehicular cyclists' because that is what we are. These are skills that benefit every person on a bike, even where there is segregation because they are skills that make us all more aware of others.As to the child argument. I have been teaching my kids how to ride in San Francisco for the last year. My 14 year old son is now able to ride almost anywhere in the city with confidence, including taking lanes and 'reading' drivers. My 9 year old daughter will not ride on the sidewalk, she recognizes the street is safer. She knows how to stay out of the door zone, how to scan intersections, how to look for reverse lights on parked cars… She is not ready to ride alone across the city, because she is small, but she rides safely with her brother. Both of my kids know how to ride better than many adults I see.We all want better space for bikes, but that does not mean that we shouldn't learn how to ride in all situations. The more who do, the better it will get for all on the road or in the bike lane.

  • MikeOnBike
    November 13, 2008 - 11:25 am | Permalink

    Anon asks: "How do VCs explain to a young one that his 60 lb body on a bike has the same rights to use the road as a 60,000 lb semi?"

    By that logic, how do we explain that a driver in a 4000 lb sedan has the same rights to use the road as a 60,000 lb semi?

    As a practical matter, not many 6-year-olds are cycling on roads with semi truck traffic. But you could ask the same question about 200 lb adults, motorcycles, Mini Coopers, or even 6,000 lb SUVs. None of them are a match against a 60,000 lb semi. Or against each other.

    But they all DO have the same right to the road. What's the alternative, physically separate lanes for every weight class of vehicle? Requiring all vehicles to weigh no less than 60,000 lbs? Road rights are proportional to vehicle weight?

    Equal rights doesn't mean you HAVE to ride on the same roads as 60,000 lb semi trucks. You could ride on a different road or on the sidewalk. But some cyclists are very concerned about giving up our rights. As Ben Franklin put it: "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."

  • MikeOnBike
    November 13, 2008 - 6:25 pm | Permalink

    Anon asks: "How do VCs explain to a young one that his 60 lb body on a bike has the same rights to use the road as a 60,000 lb semi?"By that logic, how do we explain that a driver in a 4000 lb sedan has the same rights to use the road as a 60,000 lb semi?As a practical matter, not many 6-year-olds are cycling on roads with semi truck traffic. But you could ask the same question about 200 lb adults, motorcycles, Mini Coopers, or even 6,000 lb SUVs. None of them are a match against a 60,000 lb semi. Or against each other.But they all DO have the same right to the road. What's the alternative, physically separate lanes for every weight class of vehicle? Requiring all vehicles to weigh no less than 60,000 lbs? Road rights are proportional to vehicle weight?Equal rights doesn't mean you HAVE to ride on the same roads as 60,000 lb semi trucks. You could ride on a different road or on the sidewalk. But some cyclists are very concerned about giving up our rights. As Ben Franklin put it: "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."

  • MikeOnBike
    November 13, 2008 - 6:25 pm | Permalink

    Anon asks: "How do VCs explain to a young one that his 60 lb body on a bike has the same rights to use the road as a 60,000 lb semi?"By that logic, how do we explain that a driver in a 4000 lb sedan has the same rights to use the road as a 60,000 lb semi?As a practical matter, not many 6-year-olds are cycling on roads with semi truck traffic. But you could ask the same question about 200 lb adults, motorcycles, Mini Coopers, or even 6,000 lb SUVs. None of them are a match against a 60,000 lb semi. Or against each other.But they all DO have the same right to the road. What's the alternative, physically separate lanes for every weight class of vehicle? Requiring all vehicles to weigh no less than 60,000 lbs? Road rights are proportional to vehicle weight?Equal rights doesn't mean you HAVE to ride on the same roads as 60,000 lb semi trucks. You could ride on a different road or on the sidewalk. But some cyclists are very concerned about giving up our rights. As Ben Franklin put it: "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."

  • MikeOnBike
    November 13, 2008 - 6:25 pm | Permalink

    Anon asks: "How do VCs explain to a young one that his 60 lb body on a bike has the same rights to use the road as a 60,000 lb semi?"By that logic, how do we explain that a driver in a 4000 lb sedan has the same rights to use the road as a 60,000 lb semi?As a practical matter, not many 6-year-olds are cycling on roads with semi truck traffic. But you could ask the same question about 200 lb adults, motorcycles, Mini Coopers, or even 6,000 lb SUVs. None of them are a match against a 60,000 lb semi. Or against each other.But they all DO have the same right to the road. What's the alternative, physically separate lanes for every weight class of vehicle? Requiring all vehicles to weigh no less than 60,000 lbs? Road rights are proportional to vehicle weight?Equal rights doesn't mean you HAVE to ride on the same roads as 60,000 lb semi trucks. You could ride on a different road or on the sidewalk. But some cyclists are very concerned about giving up our rights. As Ben Franklin put it: "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."

  • MikeOnBike
    November 13, 2008 - 6:25 pm | Permalink

    Anon asks: "How do VCs explain to a young one that his 60 lb body on a bike has the same rights to use the road as a 60,000 lb semi?"By that logic, how do we explain that a driver in a 4000 lb sedan has the same rights to use the road as a 60,000 lb semi?As a practical matter, not many 6-year-olds are cycling on roads with semi truck traffic. But you could ask the same question about 200 lb adults, motorcycles, Mini Coopers, or even 6,000 lb SUVs. None of them are a match against a 60,000 lb semi. Or against each other.But they all DO have the same right to the road. What's the alternative, physically separate lanes for every weight class of vehicle? Requiring all vehicles to weigh no less than 60,000 lbs? Road rights are proportional to vehicle weight?Equal rights doesn't mean you HAVE to ride on the same roads as 60,000 lb semi trucks. You could ride on a different road or on the sidewalk. But some cyclists are very concerned about giving up our rights. As Ben Franklin put it: "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."

  • MikeOnBike
    November 13, 2008 - 6:25 pm | Permalink

    Anon asks: "How do VCs explain to a young one that his 60 lb body on a bike has the same rights to use the road as a 60,000 lb semi?"By that logic, how do we explain that a driver in a 4000 lb sedan has the same rights to use the road as a 60,000 lb semi?As a practical matter, not many 6-year-olds are cycling on roads with semi truck traffic. But you could ask the same question about 200 lb adults, motorcycles, Mini Coopers, or even 6,000 lb SUVs. None of them are a match against a 60,000 lb semi. Or against each other.But they all DO have the same right to the road. What's the alternative, physically separate lanes for every weight class of vehicle? Requiring all vehicles to weigh no less than 60,000 lbs? Road rights are proportional to vehicle weight?Equal rights doesn't mean you HAVE to ride on the same roads as 60,000 lb semi trucks. You could ride on a different road or on the sidewalk. But some cyclists are very concerned about giving up our rights. As Ben Franklin put it: "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."

  • MikeOnBike
    November 13, 2008 - 6:25 pm | Permalink

    Anon asks: "How do VCs explain to a young one that his 60 lb body on a bike has the same rights to use the road as a 60,000 lb semi?"By that logic, how do we explain that a driver in a 4000 lb sedan has the same rights to use the road as a 60,000 lb semi?As a practical matter, not many 6-year-olds are cycling on roads with semi truck traffic. But you could ask the same question about 200 lb adults, motorcycles, Mini Coopers, or even 6,000 lb SUVs. None of them are a match against a 60,000 lb semi. Or against each other.But they all DO have the same right to the road. What's the alternative, physically separate lanes for every weight class of vehicle? Requiring all vehicles to weigh no less than 60,000 lbs? Road rights are proportional to vehicle weight?Equal rights doesn't mean you HAVE to ride on the same roads as 60,000 lb semi trucks. You could ride on a different road or on the sidewalk. But some cyclists are very concerned about giving up our rights. As Ben Franklin put it: "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."

  • bikesgonewild
    November 13, 2008 - 12:33 pm | Permalink

    …adrienne…polemics aside in this discussion, it was refreshing to read yer post as regards teaching yer young ones the proper tools to ride in sf…

    …i'll always remain a cynic as to the mental capacity of the majority of drivers & therefore my 'modus operandi' is essentially "ride paranoid", but good to see you installing intelligent operating procedures in yer brood…

  • bikesgonewild
    November 13, 2008 - 7:33 pm | Permalink

    …adrienne…polemics aside in this discussion, it was refreshing to read yer post as regards teaching yer young ones the proper tools to ride in sf……i'll always remain a cynic as to the mental capacity of the majority of drivers & therefore my 'modus operandi' is essentially "ride paranoid", but good to see you installing intelligent operating procedures in yer brood…

  • bikesgonewild
    November 13, 2008 - 7:33 pm | Permalink

    …adrienne…polemics aside in this discussion, it was refreshing to read yer post as regards teaching yer young ones the proper tools to ride in sf……i'll always remain a cynic as to the mental capacity of the majority of drivers & therefore my 'modus operandi' is essentially "ride paranoid", but good to see you installing intelligent operating procedures in yer brood…

  • bikesgonewild
    November 13, 2008 - 7:33 pm | Permalink

    …adrienne…polemics aside in this discussion, it was refreshing to read yer post as regards teaching yer young ones the proper tools to ride in sf……i'll always remain a cynic as to the mental capacity of the majority of drivers & therefore my 'modus operandi' is essentially "ride paranoid", but good to see you installing intelligent operating procedures in yer brood…

  • Adrienne
    November 13, 2008 - 2:43 pm | Permalink

    bikesgonewild- There is only one way to establish a 'bike culture' in this country- get out and bike. Whenever I take the kids out to ride, which is almost everyday as I have just about abandoned my car, I get a lot of comments. Most of the time, people are really surprised that kids can be taught the rules of the road and how to ride safely for themselves and others. Those in the community who already ride the streets are always thrilled to see young kids out doing the same thing and usually wave to them or give them a thumbs up. Drivers are good about giving them space and time.

    Every once in awhile, someone feels the need to lecture me about how dangerous it is and they would never allow their kids…. I just smile and let them know we are glad we are not missing out on the fun.

    It is easy to become terrified of the world from the safety of the couch. When people lose touch of how to move with their bodies, they become afraid of the world and try to project it on others. That is where so many VC's can get a bit strident, because they dislike other's projecting fear onto them. When the discussion comes away from 'safety' and moves to 'practicality', we will find the two sides come together more and more to find solutions that work for everyone.

  • Adrienne
    November 13, 2008 - 9:43 pm | Permalink

    bikesgonewild- There is only one way to establish a 'bike culture' in this country- get out and bike. Whenever I take the kids out to ride, which is almost everyday as I have just about abandoned my car, I get a lot of comments. Most of the time, people are really surprised that kids can be taught the rules of the road and how to ride safely for themselves and others. Those in the community who already ride the streets are always thrilled to see young kids out doing the same thing and usually wave to them or give them a thumbs up. Drivers are good about giving them space and time.Every once in awhile, someone feels the need to lecture me about how dangerous it is and they would never allow their kids…. I just smile and let them know we are glad we are not missing out on the fun.It is easy to become terrified of the world from the safety of the couch. When people lose touch of how to move with their bodies, they become afraid of the world and try to project it on others. That is where so many VC's can get a bit strident, because they dislike other's projecting fear onto them. When the discussion comes away from 'safety' and moves to 'practicality', we will find the two sides come together more and more to find solutions that work for everyone.

  • Ed W
    November 13, 2008 - 4:22 pm | Permalink

    This is truly an interesting discussion since it covers most of the spectrum. But let's be clear about what a 'united front' really means. It's simple and blunt – shut up and let us have our bike lanes.

    I'm not joking. A former president of our state bicycling coalition was told just that at a DC Bike Summit a few years ago. The person who said it is the former leader of a large so-called bicycling advocacy group exclusively focused on bike lanes. VC need not apply.

    So you'll have to excuse me when the idea of a united front comes up. I don't substitute superstition and supposition for factual information. Fear mongering is the stock-in-trade of some advocacy groups, and they use it to pursue facilities that have little or no real benefit for cyclists. No one asks if it's a wise use of public funds to build facilities that offer no greater safety than riding in the street, yet somehow we're supposed to believe that these magical bike lanes and paths are capable of luring motorists out of their cars and onto bikes. We're supposed to believe in 'build it and they will come.'

    Bunk.

    Nationally, we've spent ever-increasing amounts of money on bike facilities since the 1970s. Yet bike sales and bike usage have remained essentially flat. So why spend more money on programs that don't reduce motor vehicle use and don't make cyclists safer? Who benefits?

    I've read accounts from cyclists who say they can't get from A to B because there are no bike lanes or paths connecting the two. It doesn't occur to them to ride on the road, and there are advocacy groups that foster that fear and dependency. It's simply wrong. I'd rather teach vehicular cyclists and empower them to use the existing road network safely and comfortably, rather than add to the ranks of fearful ones who cannot leave the dubious security of a sidewalk, a bikelane, or a path.

  • Ed W
    November 13, 2008 - 11:22 pm | Permalink

    This is truly an interesting discussion since it covers most of the spectrum. But let's be clear about what a 'united front' really means. It's simple and blunt – shut up and let us have our bike lanes.I'm not joking. A former president of our state bicycling coalition was told just that at a DC Bike Summit a few years ago. The person who said it is the former leader of a large so-called bicycling advocacy group exclusively focused on bike lanes. VC need not apply.So you'll have to excuse me when the idea of a united front comes up. I don't substitute superstition and supposition for factual information. Fear mongering is the stock-in-trade of some advocacy groups, and they use it to pursue facilities that have little or no real benefit for cyclists. No one asks if it's a wise use of public funds to build facilities that offer no greater safety than riding in the street, yet somehow we're supposed to believe that these magical bike lanes and paths are capable of luring motorists out of their cars and onto bikes. We're supposed to believe in 'build it and they will come.'Bunk.Nationally, we've spent ever-increasing amounts of money on bike facilities since the 1970s. Yet bike sales and bike usage have remained essentially flat. So why spend more money on programs that don't reduce motor vehicle use and don't make cyclists safer? Who benefits?I've read accounts from cyclists who say they can't get from A to B because there are no bike lanes or paths connecting the two. It doesn't occur to them to ride on the road, and there are advocacy groups that foster that fear and dependency. It's simply wrong. I'd rather teach vehicular cyclists and empower them to use the existing road network safely and comfortably, rather than add to the ranks of fearful ones who cannot leave the dubious security of a sidewalk, a bikelane, or a path.

  • Ed W
    November 13, 2008 - 11:22 pm | Permalink

    This is truly an interesting discussion since it covers most of the spectrum. But let's be clear about what a 'united front' really means. It's simple and blunt – shut up and let us have our bike lanes.I'm not joking. A former president of our state bicycling coalition was told just that at a DC Bike Summit a few years ago. The person who said it is the former leader of a large so-called bicycling advocacy group exclusively focused on bike lanes. VC need not apply.So you'll have to excuse me when the idea of a united front comes up. I don't substitute superstition and supposition for factual information. Fear mongering is the stock-in-trade of some advocacy groups, and they use it to pursue facilities that have little or no real benefit for cyclists. No one asks if it's a wise use of public funds to build facilities that offer no greater safety than riding in the street, yet somehow we're supposed to believe that these magical bike lanes and paths are capable of luring motorists out of their cars and onto bikes. We're supposed to believe in 'build it and they will come.'Bunk.Nationally, we've spent ever-increasing amounts of money on bike facilities since the 1970s. Yet bike sales and bike usage have remained essentially flat. So why spend more money on programs that don't reduce motor vehicle use and don't make cyclists safer? Who benefits?I've read accounts from cyclists who say they can't get from A to B because there are no bike lanes or paths connecting the two. It doesn't occur to them to ride on the road, and there are advocacy groups that foster that fear and dependency. It's simply wrong. I'd rather teach vehicular cyclists and empower them to use the existing road network safely and comfortably, rather than add to the ranks of fearful ones who cannot leave the dubious security of a sidewalk, a bikelane, or a path.

  • Evolution
    November 27, 2008 - 9:10 pm | Permalink

    I think many cyclists who advocate for the on-road cycling option forget that not all cyclists have the skills or experience to ride safely with traffic.
    I'm thinking particularly about school children, the elderly or the really wobbly, novice cyclists.
    Children especially should be able to ride safely to and from school, sport their friends homes or the beach without having to contend with motor vehicles.
    If cars have roads and pedestrians have footpaths, is it too much to expect appropriate infrastructure for cyclists?
    Michael
    Sydney Australia

  • Evolution
    November 28, 2008 - 4:10 am | Permalink

    I think many cyclists who advocate for the on-road cycling option forget that not all cyclists have the skills or experience to ride safely with traffic. I'm thinking particularly about school children, the elderly or the really wobbly, novice cyclists. Children especially should be able to ride safely to and from school, sport their friends homes or the beach without having to contend with motor vehicles.If cars have roads and pedestrians have footpaths, is it too much to expect appropriate infrastructure for cyclists?Michael Sydney Australia

  • Evolution
    November 28, 2008 - 4:10 am | Permalink

    I think many cyclists who advocate for the on-road cycling option forget that not all cyclists have the skills or experience to ride safely with traffic. I'm thinking particularly about school children, the elderly or the really wobbly, novice cyclists. Children especially should be able to ride safely to and from school, sport their friends homes or the beach without having to contend with motor vehicles.If cars have roads and pedestrians have footpaths, is it too much to expect appropriate infrastructure for cyclists?Michael Sydney Australia

  • Evolution
    November 28, 2008 - 4:10 am | Permalink

    I think many cyclists who advocate for the on-road cycling option forget that not all cyclists have the skills or experience to ride safely with traffic. I'm thinking particularly about school children, the elderly or the really wobbly, novice cyclists. Children especially should be able to ride safely to and from school, sport their friends homes or the beach without having to contend with motor vehicles.If cars have roads and pedestrians have footpaths, is it too much to expect appropriate infrastructure for cyclists?Michael Sydney Australia

  • Evolution
    November 28, 2008 - 4:10 am | Permalink

    I think many cyclists who advocate for the on-road cycling option forget that not all cyclists have the skills or experience to ride safely with traffic. I'm thinking particularly about school children, the elderly or the really wobbly, novice cyclists. Children especially should be able to ride safely to and from school, sport their friends homes or the beach without having to contend with motor vehicles.If cars have roads and pedestrians have footpaths, is it too much to expect appropriate infrastructure for cyclists?Michael Sydney Australia

  • Leave a Reply