4 ms·

I see you're going to ignore the half-dozen times I literally said "maybe the solution is" and also the times I said "maybe this isn't the solution", that's fin

I see you're going to ignore the half-dozen times I literally said "maybe the solution is" and also the times I said "maybe this isn't the solution", that's fine. The problem still remains that bikes traveling at 10-15mph, maybe 20mph for faster riders, do not belong on the same surface as vehicles traveling at 45-55mph. It's also very expensive to create new and independent infrastructure for bikes, cars, and pedestrians separately. And bikers are a very diverse group, you can hardly say that Timmy with his training wheels should be cruising down the highway side-by-side with vehicle traffic, and Lance doing 30mph on the sidewalk is also unacceptable. But you've already apparently ruled out speed limits because... well actually for no reason at all. Bike computers are like $10 at Walmart and bikes already have to follow the road's speed limit, so... Maybe we have this disagreement because I live in a rural/suburban area and not in a major city, so I see recreational bicycles on sidewalks all the time and there is no infrastructure for bikes other than a single straight-line MUP. And on long uphill sections where my speed dips down to 5mph, fuck yeah I'm getting on the sidewalk. I'd be insane not to. 90% of the car/bike accidents in my area are on normal stretches of road, not at intersections. The driver just doesn't see the bike, or thinks he's given the biker enough room but hasn't. Pedestrians won't become vigilant. Neither will cars. Neither will bikers. So the answer is just let cyclists die so one of the more important groups of people don't have to be slightly inconvenienced. I appreciate the conversation we've had today, and I'm glad the task of solving this problem isn't left to the two of us.

dpark 10y ago
I'm not ignoring anything. I've responded to your proposals. The proposal you keep pushing is putting bicycles on sidewalks, so that's what I've responded to. I guess you've also now suggested that cyclists just keep dying. I guess that's an option, although that seems more like a passive aggressive way for you to keep pushing the false dichotomy of bikes on sidewalks or dead cyclists. Your speed limit suggestion isn't bad, it's just not really actionable. Making bikes travel at or close to pedestrian speed would make cycling useless to most serious cyclists. And if you set the speed limit far higher than pedestrians, it does nothing for safety. Then of course there's the problem of enforcement. Given the general ineffectiveness of speed limit enforcement for cars, I'm doubtful. And as you noted, bikes already legally have to follow the posted speed limit, and when it's inconvenient (i.e. long downhill stretches with 30mph limits), they don't, and it's generally unenforced. But yes, if you live in a rural area, the calculation is probably different for you. Sparsely-used sidewalks/MUPs are in general safer than heavily-used MUPs. A MUP with good visibility and few users can be shared with relative safety, especially if there is a safe "shoulder" to veer onto and no blind intersections. My sidewalks are crowded with pedestrians and littered with intersections for streets, alleys, and driveways, all of which make cyclists on the sidewalks less safe than the roads where cars are driving 30mph (ish). And yeah, if your speed drops to 5mph, I have no problem with you chugging along on the sidewalk, even in the city (though you still need to watch out for pedestrians, and you'd probably find it's not worth the hassle). At that point you're pedestrian speed. I am surprised that most of the accidents in your area are on straight sections of road, though. I'm pretty sure the majority of accidents involving cyclists in Seattle are at intersections of some sort. I appreciate the conversation, too.

dpark 10y ago

I'm not ignoring anything. I've responded to your proposals. The proposal you keep pushing is putting bicycles on sidewalks, so that's what I've responded to. I guess you've also now suggested that cyclists just keep dying. I guess that's an option, although that seems more like a passive aggressive way for you to keep pushing the false dichotomy of bikes on sidewalks or dead cyclists. Your speed limit suggestion isn't bad, it's just not really actionable. Making bikes travel at or close to pedestrian speed would make cycling useless to most serious cyclists. And if you set the speed limit far higher than pedestrians, it does nothing for safety. Then of course there's the problem of enforcement. Given the general ineffectiveness of speed limit enforcement for cars, I'm doubtful. And as you noted, bikes already legally have to follow the posted speed limit, and when it's inconvenient (i.e. long downhill stretches with 30mph limits), they don't, and it's generally unenforced. But yes, if you live in a rural area, the calculation is probably different for you. Sparsely-used sidewalks/MUPs are in general safer than heavily-used MUPs. A MUP with good visibility and few users can be shared with relative safety, especially if there is a safe "shoulder" to veer onto and no blind intersections. My sidewalks are crowded with pedestrians and littered with intersections for streets, alleys, and driveways, all of which make cyclists on the sidewalks less safe than the roads where cars are driving 30mph (ish). And yeah, if your speed drops to 5mph, I have no problem with you chugging along on the sidewalk, even in the city (though you still need to watch out for pedestrians, and you'd probably find it's not worth the hassle). At that point you're pedestrian speed. I am surprised that most of the accidents in your area are on straight sections of road, though. I'm pretty sure the majority of accidents involving cyclists in Seattle are at intersections of some sort. I appreciate the conversation, too.