NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/bicycles/soc/1305

Text File | 1992-12-26 | 3.6 KB | 62 lines

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!mojo.eng.umd.edu!gsurbeck
From: [e-mail] (Gregory D. Surbeck)
Subject: Re: Bike paths (FROM Re: Cycling and Environmentalism)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 03:59:04 GMT
Organization: Project GLUE, University of Maryland, College Park
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 51

    I have seen, over the past few days, some excellent arguments
against bikeways for training for competetive cycling or high-speed
commuting.  Unfortunately, people who argue to support both of these
groups seem to overlook most cyclists on the road.  While aggressive
off-road riding is one thing, my on-road rides rarely average above 15
mph.  While I feel I have every right to share a residential street
with a driver if I can travel at 25 mph, which I can for a little
while, I also know that for me to be on a 45 mph rural highway without
shoulders is dangerous for myself and at least annoying for the people
behind me.
    One person (sorry that I didn't note your name) advocated
roads with wide right lanes.  I feel most comfortable in city traffic
(compared to rural traffic), because the right lane *is* usually wide
to allow for parallel parking.  I agree with this idea.
    But I also use bikeways and even hiker-biker-equestrian
trails.  I acknowledge their limitations.  *I*, the cyclist, have to
be the one to break my rhythm when someone lets go of their dog's
leash.  *I*, the cyclist, have to be the one to swerve when a
pedestrian can't walk straight.  That is the price I pay for avoiding
the traffic when I want to get from point A to B without traffic that
weighs 2 tons.
    Politicians and environmentalists and any other
over-simplified group you want to name who advocate cyclists using
bikeways instead of roads have what *they think* are cyclists best
interests in mind.  Unfortunately unless you read these newsgroups
seriously or continuously interact with all types of cyclists, you
can't possibly understand them.  Just like the term environmentalist
is an oversimplification, so is cyclist.  A triathlete can be different
from a roadie can be different from a tourer can be different from a
mountain biker.  Or they could be the exact same person.
    Bikeways are not the only solution.  Cyclists *must* be
respected on roads; they must legally be considered a vehicle, like
cars, on the roads.  To do any less would be to diminish their role,
just like John Forester fears.  But to blast bikeways doesn't help.
To everyone who rides the roads regularly, I ask where you learned to
ride?  I started in a school parking lot, and after graduating from my
residential street, I moved to the local paths around a man-made lake.
People walked on them everyday, but somehow, that wasn't a problem for
a 6 year old who had only been riding for a short while.
    If you read carefully, you'll see that "pure" roadies, those
that train on roads, not paths, don't really disagree with the concept
of bikeways.  They just don't realistically work for competitive
cyclists.  I think that that is due in part to the fact that people
just don't think of the bicycle as a vehicle.  To many, it is
recreation.  The problem is that, in making a good point, the "pure"
roadies seem to attack the idea of bikeways.  If you don't like them,
then stay off them.  Which is what you do, I'm sure.  And I hate to
end this note on a cliche but, can't we just all get along? :O)
    Good luck to everyone riding, be it dodging crazy toddlers or
maniac drivers.