3 ms·
But you're assuming a car first approach. And on a high-way, I agree with you. It's a car's world, but in a city, or town on a non-major thoroughfare, cars an
by jrock08 12y ago
But you're assuming a car first approach. And on a high-way, I agree with you. It's a car's world, but in a city, or town on a non-major thoroughfare, cars and bikes should be able to co-exist peacefully. To stretch your analogy a bit, low speed roadways would be like swimming in non-shark infested waters. Sure, you are liable to see car but you shouldn't feel like you are in danger when your are passed by the car, and on the other side, drivers shouldn't feel like they are within inches of killing a cyclist when they use a road legally and responsibly. (I add responsibly there because many drivers will complain that they feel they have to pay more attention when the drive near cyclists. I find this a wholly unconvincing argument, if you aren't paying attention while driving you aren't driving responsibly)
I also don't have any desire to use a car frequently. I shouldn't be forced to resort to a car to travel anything less than 15 miles due to fear or lack of infrastructure. And we face a chicken and egg problem. It would be great if we could have elevated bikeways tomorrow, but the truth of the matter is we should be encouraging bike use now not hypothetically in a utopian future. Because without proven use, there's no way major bike infrastructure projects will happen.