Curious about youse guys' opinions

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:02:22 -0700, fbloogyudsr wrote:

> it's a pic of a cyclist lane
> splitting!

It's a picture of a bike sharing a left turn lane. I'd personally have
taken the whole lane, but nothing illegal or majorly stupid about sharing
it like the cyclist in the picture.

In article >,
fbloogyudsr > wrote:
>But, the most
>amazing
>thing about the article is the pictu it's a pic of a cyclist lane
>splitting!

I usually do that at least twice on the way to work and once on the
way home. You get where you're going a lot faster if you don't have
to wait in line to make left turns.

>Certainly one of the more dangerous - and in WA state illegal, I believe -
>things to do on a bike.

Riding on bike paths which intersect roads is much more dangerous.

--
<a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/">Home Page</a>
In 1913 the inflation adjusted (in 2003 dollars) exemption for single people
was $54,567, married couples' exemption $72,756, the next $363,783 was taxed
at 1%, and earnings over $9,094,578 were taxed at the top rate of 7%.

"Drew Eckhardt" > wrote
> fbloogyudsr > wrote:

> Riding on bike paths which intersect roads is much more dangerous.

Completely agree! ;-( Ask me why (or don't, I'm sure you know
the answer.)

Floyd

fbloogyudsr wrote:
> "Drew Eckhardt" > wrote
>
>> fbloogyudsr > wrote:
>
>
>> Riding on bike paths which intersect roads is much more dangerous.
>
>
> Completely agree! ;-( Ask me why (or don't, I'm sure you know
> the answer.)
>

Because city planners are too clueless to warn MV drivers of the bike
path crossing the road. There are three possible solutions:

1) Sign, bike crossing. Cheap, needs no power, little maintenance and
works, but not as well as other methods. Good for low traffic areas
with road speed limits below 60km/h (36mph).

2) Traffic signals, More expensive, expensive to maintain, works better
then the sign, but needs method of triggering the signals. Good on
roads that are moderately busy, with most traffic in bunches, again
speed limits should be limited to below 70km/h (42mph).

3) Split level crossings, either bikes go under in a tunnel, or bikes go
over a bridge. Most expensive to build, little maintenance, and works
the best. May need to deal with bikes entering roadway. May be grading
issues. Only method where there is high traffic moving at high speeds.
Should be wide enough for two bikes and possibly pedestrians as well.

W

"The Wogster" > wrote
> fbloogyudsr wrote:
>>> Riding on bike paths which intersect roads is much more dangerous.
>>
>> Completely agree! ;-( Ask me why (or don't, I'm sure you know
>> the answer.)
>>
> Because city planners are too clueless to warn MV drivers of the bike
> path crossing the road. There are three possible solutions:
> etc.

Actually, my question was facetious: after being almost taken out
several times along W. Lk. Sammamish, I quit riding in the (single)
bike lane, and eventually quit the route.

Floyd

"fbloogyudsr" > wrote in message
...
> "The Wogster" > wrote
> > fbloogyudsr wrote:
> >>> Riding on bike paths which intersect roads is much more dangerous.
> >>
> >> Completely agree! ;-( Ask me why (or don't, I'm sure you know
> >> the answer.)
> >>
> > Because city planners are too clueless to warn MV drivers of the bike
> > path crossing the road. There are three possible solutions:
> > etc.
>
> Actually, my question was facetious: after being almost taken out
> several times along W. Lk. Sammamish, I quit riding in the (single)
> bike lane, and eventually quit the route.
>
> Floyd

i definitely agree. esp that damned burke-gilman with all of those blind
driveways, and rollerbladers, and strollers and a 15mph speed limit...gimme
a nice side street 30 mph limit where i can be seen!