B
Bill Z.
Guest
Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>
> > As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans
> > design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than
> > HOV lanes.
>
> The whole concept of bike lanes is bad.
>
> That said, I think they can reasonably be used on freeways. Elsewhere
> they are more appropriately called Bike Reservations.
Pein, cut your idiotic rhetoric and show what you think is wrong with
the Caltrans standards for bike lanes.
>
> You keep bringing up a comparison between bike lanes and HOV
> lanes. Apparently you have an inability to distinguish differences.
>
> HOV lanes are 12' wide, are used on freeways, are typically (always?)
> the left lane (US), are intended to allow their users to pass
> congestion, are not mandatory, do not collect debris, and are
> universally loved by their users.
>
> Bike lanes are 4' wide, are used on normal streets which is an
> inappropriate treatment, are typically the rightmost lane (US), are
> intended to allow motorists to pass bicyclists easier while sometimes
> stopped motorists block the bike lane, are typically mandatory (if not
> mandatory, motorists enforce their use anyway), collect debris, and
> are often despised by their intended users.
Bike lanes are usually wider than 4' around here, sometimes a lot wider,
are clear of debris, and are in most cases popular with "their intended
users." The use of the lane is not mandatory in general, but rather
simply reflects the normal "slower traffic keeps to the right" rule.
The people who get as emotional as you do are very much a minority,
albeit a vocal one on usenet.
Also, bike lanes allow bicyclists to pass congestion whenever the
congestion is so bad that a bicyclist can ride faster than normal
traffic, and when that is the case, the use of the bike lane is
completely optional. It is pointless to argue about it - the CVC
is available on line.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>
> > As I suggested to you people previously, show what is bad in the Caltrans
> > design standards for bike lanes and why bike lanes are somehow worse than
> > HOV lanes.
>
> The whole concept of bike lanes is bad.
>
> That said, I think they can reasonably be used on freeways. Elsewhere
> they are more appropriately called Bike Reservations.
Pein, cut your idiotic rhetoric and show what you think is wrong with
the Caltrans standards for bike lanes.
>
> You keep bringing up a comparison between bike lanes and HOV
> lanes. Apparently you have an inability to distinguish differences.
>
> HOV lanes are 12' wide, are used on freeways, are typically (always?)
> the left lane (US), are intended to allow their users to pass
> congestion, are not mandatory, do not collect debris, and are
> universally loved by their users.
>
> Bike lanes are 4' wide, are used on normal streets which is an
> inappropriate treatment, are typically the rightmost lane (US), are
> intended to allow motorists to pass bicyclists easier while sometimes
> stopped motorists block the bike lane, are typically mandatory (if not
> mandatory, motorists enforce their use anyway), collect debris, and
> are often despised by their intended users.
Bike lanes are usually wider than 4' around here, sometimes a lot wider,
are clear of debris, and are in most cases popular with "their intended
users." The use of the lane is not mandatory in general, but rather
simply reflects the normal "slower traffic keeps to the right" rule.
The people who get as emotional as you do are very much a minority,
albeit a vocal one on usenet.
Also, bike lanes allow bicyclists to pass congestion whenever the
congestion is so bad that a bicyclist can ride faster than normal
traffic, and when that is the case, the use of the bike lane is
completely optional. It is pointless to argue about it - the CVC
is available on line.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB