3 ms·

> I fully support making sidewalks into multi-purpose trails where they can accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists Mixed use paths are only safe if the cycl

by dpark 10y ago

> I fully support making sidewalks into multi-purpose trails where they can accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists Mixed use paths are only safe if the cyclists are leisurely riding. Cyclists at speed sharing a path with pedestrians are quite dangerous. Pedestrians are rarely paying attention and will wander directly in front of cyclists. Being on a "sidewalk" is also quite dangerous to cyclists if the trail ever intersects car traffic, and it will if useful for commuting. The solution is not to put cyclists on pedestrian paths but to make bike paths in the road safer. Part of this is infrastructure. Part of this is building slower roads. Much of it is culture as drivers need to do a better job of being safe with cyclists.

freehunter 10y ago
The solution is to make everyone fully aware of the rules. Many often behave without regard for their own safety or the safety of those around them, even in pedestrian-on-pedestrian incidents. I've run into people in the grocery store when they stop without warning, or had to find alternate paths around them when they decide to block the entire aisle. This extends to sidewalks and MUPs too. There is a MUP near my house with a ton of foot and bike traffic, and often pedestrians take up the entire 12-foot wide path making it dangerous for cyclists to pass them. And many times when I yell that I'm passing someone on the left, they instinctively step to the left, causing me to lock up my brakes to avoid hitting them. Again cyclists take the blame for all of the problems, while still not being provided with any solutions. Pedestrians often have headphones in and can't hear bikes, but if bikers are wearing headphones they're told how dangerous it is for them. Pedestrians weave side to side making it hard to pass, but bikes are expected to keep a perfectly straight line when riding on often rough roads. Pedestrians often have almost perfect maneuverability due to their low speed and ability to step sideways out of danger, but bikes are to blame if they can't stop or jump sideways at a moment's notice. Pedestrians can often step to the grass to get our of danger, while many road bikes could suffer damage to their wheels (or rider) if they left the paved surface. The problem with putting in separate bike paths is now we have three different road systems sharing the space, which in cities is often limited and in rural areas is economically unfeasible to maintain. And it still doesn't solve the problem of cross streets, which both pedestrians and cyclists suffer from at the hands of motorists. Maybe the answer is to draw a line down the sidewalk to indicate to pedestrians and cyclists that they need to stay to the right (or left depending on country) so faster modes of transport can safely pass. Maybe we should enforce a speed limit on bikes in certain areas. But all of the problems pedestrians face at the hands of cyclists, cyclists face against motor vehicles, but the danger is far greater. Getting hit at 45mph while you're riding at 10mph is a lot different than being hit while walking by a bike going 10mph. Drivers hate bike. Pedestrians hate bikes. Competitive cyclists hate recreational bikers. Recreational bikers hate speed demon bikers. I don't know, maybe the solution is banning bicycles. Seems that would make everyone else happy, wouldn't it?
- dpark 10y ago
  > The solution is to make everyone fully aware of the rules. Unfortunately, "everyone just do a better job" is generally a failing strategy. This is also the problem with getting drivers to do a better job. They just won't, at least not without a lot of effort. > Again cyclists take the blame for all of the problems, while still not being provided with any solutions.... That's because cyclists are the problem. All the things you describe about pedestrians apply only because bikes showed up on sidewalks. Pedestrians weaving side to side and wearing headphones are only safety issues if fast-moving vehicles are sharing the path. It's not that pedestrians are immune from fault. Pedestrians who wander into traffic randomly are considered at fault. But they aren't at fault for acting like pedestrians on a pedestrian path. We don't put cars and pedestrians onto shared paths and then expect pedestrians to walk in perfectly straight lines to allow cars zip past them at 20mph. And there is a solution for cycling, which is to make roads safer for cyclists. There are lots of ways to do that. There isn't a lack of ability, but a lack of will and funding. > The problem with putting in separate bike paths is now we have three different road systems sharing the space, which in cities is often limited and in rural areas is economically unfeasible to maintain. And it still doesn't solve the problem of cross streets, which both pedestrians and cyclists suffer from at the hands of motorists. Yeah, it's tough to share the space efficiently. Dumping the problem on pedestrians doesn't fix it, though. Pedestrians also don't have as much of a cross-street problem as cyclists. This is a place where pedestrians tend to pay attention and cars tend to look for them. Cyclists have a much bigger problem because 1) cars aren't looking for fast-moving vehicles on the sidewalk half a block away, 2) cyclists can't stop at a moment's notice when they realize the car isn't going to stop. > Maybe the answer is to draw a line down the sidewalk to indicate to pedestrians and cyclists that they need to stay to the right (or left depending on country) so faster modes of transport can safely pass. This doesn't generally work. Pedestrians will cross the line whenever it's convenient to do so, or if they're not paying attention, or whatever. You could maybe make it work by making it extremely wide, but then you might as well have separate paths and physical barrier between them. > Maybe we should enforce a speed limit on bikes in certain areas. Good luck with that. Most bikes don't have speedometers and in any event, the safe speed on a shared path is far slower than most cyclists want to travel, namely jogging speed. > But all of the problems pedestrians face at the hands of cyclists, cyclists face against motor vehicles, but the danger is far greater. Getting hit at 45mph while you're riding at 10mph is a lot different than being hit while walking by a bike going 10mph. That doesn't mean that dumping the problem on pedestrians is a good tradeoff. Not only do mixed-use paths put pedestrians at higher risk, they still put cyclists at risk (possibly worse risk, due to the intersection problem), and they frustrate both cyclists and pedestrians. It's not a good solution for anyone except leisurely cyclists who can frankly cycle on sidewalks today and it's fine. Also, bikes are often going faster than 10mph.

by dpark 10y ago

freehunter 10y ago

The solution is to make everyone fully aware of the rules. Many often behave without regard for their own safety or the safety of those around them, even in pedestrian-on-pedestrian incidents. I've run into people in the grocery store when they stop without warning, or had to find alternate paths around them when they decide to block the entire aisle. This extends to sidewalks and MUPs too. There is a MUP near my house with a ton of foot and bike traffic, and often pedestrians take up the entire 12-foot wide path making it dangerous for cyclists to pass them. And many times when I yell that I'm passing someone on the left, they instinctively step to the left, causing me to lock up my brakes to avoid hitting them. Again cyclists take the blame for all of the problems, while still not being provided with any solutions. Pedestrians often have headphones in and can't hear bikes, but if bikers are wearing headphones they're told how dangerous it is for them. Pedestrians weave side to side making it hard to pass, but bikes are expected to keep a perfectly straight line when riding on often rough roads. Pedestrians often have almost perfect maneuverability due to their low speed and ability to step sideways out of danger, but bikes are to blame if they can't stop or jump sideways at a moment's notice. Pedestrians can often step to the grass to get our of danger, while many road bikes could suffer damage to their wheels (or rider) if they left the paved surface. The problem with putting in separate bike paths is now we have three different road systems sharing the space, which in cities is often limited and in rural areas is economically unfeasible to maintain. And it still doesn't solve the problem of cross streets, which both pedestrians and cyclists suffer from at the hands of motorists. Maybe the answer is to draw a line down the sidewalk to indicate to pedestrians and cyclists that they need to stay to the right (or left depending on country) so faster modes of transport can safely pass. Maybe we should enforce a speed limit on bikes in certain areas. But all of the problems pedestrians face at the hands of cyclists, cyclists face against motor vehicles, but the danger is far greater. Getting hit at 45mph while you're riding at 10mph is a lot different than being hit while walking by a bike going 10mph. Drivers hate bike. Pedestrians hate bikes. Competitive cyclists hate recreational bikers. Recreational bikers hate speed demon bikers. I don't know, maybe the solution is banning bicycles. Seems that would make everyone else happy, wouldn't it?

dpark 10y ago
> The solution is to make everyone fully aware of the rules. Unfortunately, "everyone just do a better job" is generally a failing strategy. This is also the problem with getting drivers to do a better job. They just won't, at least not without a lot of effort. > Again cyclists take the blame for all of the problems, while still not being provided with any solutions.... That's because cyclists are the problem. All the things you describe about pedestrians apply only because bikes showed up on sidewalks. Pedestrians weaving side to side and wearing headphones are only safety issues if fast-moving vehicles are sharing the path. It's not that pedestrians are immune from fault. Pedestrians who wander into traffic randomly are considered at fault. But they aren't at fault for acting like pedestrians on a pedestrian path. We don't put cars and pedestrians onto shared paths and then expect pedestrians to walk in perfectly straight lines to allow cars zip past them at 20mph. And there is a solution for cycling, which is to make roads safer for cyclists. There are lots of ways to do that. There isn't a lack of ability, but a lack of will and funding. > The problem with putting in separate bike paths is now we have three different road systems sharing the space, which in cities is often limited and in rural areas is economically unfeasible to maintain. And it still doesn't solve the problem of cross streets, which both pedestrians and cyclists suffer from at the hands of motorists. Yeah, it's tough to share the space efficiently. Dumping the problem on pedestrians doesn't fix it, though. Pedestrians also don't have as much of a cross-street problem as cyclists. This is a place where pedestrians tend to pay attention and cars tend to look for them. Cyclists have a much bigger problem because 1) cars aren't looking for fast-moving vehicles on the sidewalk half a block away, 2) cyclists can't stop at a moment's notice when they realize the car isn't going to stop. > Maybe the answer is to draw a line down the sidewalk to indicate to pedestrians and cyclists that they need to stay to the right (or left depending on country) so faster modes of transport can safely pass. This doesn't generally work. Pedestrians will cross the line whenever it's convenient to do so, or if they're not paying attention, or whatever. You could maybe make it work by making it extremely wide, but then you might as well have separate paths and physical barrier between them. > Maybe we should enforce a speed limit on bikes in certain areas. Good luck with that. Most bikes don't have speedometers and in any event, the safe speed on a shared path is far slower than most cyclists want to travel, namely jogging speed. > But all of the problems pedestrians face at the hands of cyclists, cyclists face against motor vehicles, but the danger is far greater. Getting hit at 45mph while you're riding at 10mph is a lot different than being hit while walking by a bike going 10mph. That doesn't mean that dumping the problem on pedestrians is a good tradeoff. Not only do mixed-use paths put pedestrians at higher risk, they still put cyclists at risk (possibly worse risk, due to the intersection problem), and they frustrate both cyclists and pedestrians. It's not a good solution for anyone except leisurely cyclists who can frankly cycle on sidewalks today and it's fine. Also, bikes are often going faster than 10mph.