> What about the paths for the bikes?
There are two ways to go around it:
1- BIKE PATHS FOR FAMILIES AND PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH
TRAFFIC, AND
2- LET THE BIKE 'TAKE THE LANE,' which means that the bike rides in
the center of the lane and the vehicles must exit the lane 30' before
and after.
Put cameras everywhere and enforce above laws. No bikes on sidewalks.
That's a sign of Banana Republic.
----------------------------------------------------------------
THE WISE TIBETAN MONKEYS SAYS
"When the laws are not enforced, the law of the jungle takes over"
>On Mar 15, 9:19 pm, Doris Briscoe <dbrisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What about the paths for the bikes?
>
>There are two ways to go around it:
>
>1- BIKE PATHS FOR FAMILIES AND PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH
>TRAFFIC, AND
>
>2- LET THE BIKE 'TAKE THE LANE,' which means that the bike rides in
>the center of the lane and the vehicles must exit the lane 30' before
>and after.
>
>Put cameras everywhere and enforce above laws. No bikes on sidewalks.
>That's a sign of Banana Republic.
>
>
No rules are 100%. I very rarely ride on sidewalks but there is one
overpass across an expressway that is very dangerous to ride on. And I
commute through Manhattan so that takes some doing. However the
sidewalks are very wide so I sometimes take the sidewalks if the cars
are being overly crazy.
Yeah but...
a) If they enforced the laws...
b) The risk of hurting a pedestrian is always high.
Here they don't let you ride a bike on sidewalks only where the fat
cats live.
I was riding in Chicago last summer and there are some streets where
the signs tell bikes to ride on the sidewalk because the roads really
are too narrow.
There's always exceptions to the rule. But we have a situation here
where we are told to 'walk bike on sidewalk' on a drawbridge, and the
width of the sidewalk is not enough to accomodate both. Then you have
two lanes of traffic that are a no go for bikes FOR NO GOOD REASON.
I get the feeling that WE DO NOT EXIST!