Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which is kind of like saying "If I had my way I would limit automobile use to racetracks." Bicycles have the same right to the public street as automobiles.
No they really don't.
You must ride as close as possible to the right hand side of the roadway except when passing or turning left (or road condition). Generally can't "take the lane" except in such conditions. The law may be different in another state but not likely by much.
You must ride as close as possible to the right hand side of the roadway except when passing or turning left (or road condition). Generally can't "take the lane" except in such conditions. The law may be different in another state but not likely by much.
The number one rule for bicyclists is ride where you are safest. It may not be at the right hand side of the lane. (Parked cars, obstructions, poor lane quality) even though from the car vantage point the road looks fine.
It's threads like this that make me see the impacts of a truly auto centric society. The fact that people do not understand the impact of highways in urban areas, how curb cuts impact walking, and what is really a walkable environment is telling. None of these concepts are complicated, but they do appear to be controversial. Very unfortunate
In general, the people who aren't picky about walkability don't seem to walk much for transportation and generally drive. I think they'd notice more if they walked much more.
IMHO if I had my way I would limit bike use to parks.
Funny, if the pro-urban and transit crowd said something like this against cars, people would be in an uproar in this forum. Luckily, you don't get to make the decisions on where bikes ride. Because if you did, there would be many people who would be unable to get to where they need to go because they can't afford a car and transit is terrible.
In general, the people who aren't picky about walkability don't seem to walk much for transportation and generally drive. I think they'd notice more if they walked much more.
This is exactly the right. It's crystal clear who does not walk, ride transit, or bike for transportation in this forum (and really rely on it). Anybody who has lived in an urban area and relied on these forms for transportation woils understand these concepts. What's surprising, is that there are so many people who are interested in this forum that fit that criteria.
Sidewalks provide a walking path separated from street traffic. There is usually some type of light and/or crosswalk at intersections. As jade408 says, in California every intersection is an implied crosswalk, and I believe that is the law in Colorado and some other states as well.
First, I asked about car dependency not just walking safety. It can very safe to walk but if it'd forever to walk anywhere, it's car dependent, anyone who values their time in the slightest would drive. Just because there's a signaled intersection doesn't mean it's that safe to cross. And if the intersections are spaced out, the detour tO cross the road safely can be very long. All of these issues is something anyone who walks a lot for transportation would notice. I've discussed this many times. I posted examples. I cant post more as im posting from a phone. Instead of acknowleding them, instead you claim I'm making them up to satisfy arbitrary rules. I got very annoyed, and mocking others views is a quick way to irritate.
Quote:
If one is walking from "Point A" to "Point B", and the quickest way to get there is through "Commercial Area C", what difference does it make if Area C is mostly car dealerships and fast food restaurants and doesn't have coffee shops, street musicians, buskers, bars, movie theaters, etc, along the way? Isn't safe passage the objective?
Why is one interested in walking? I'm thinking two possibilties:
1) you don't have access to a car.
Then yes, safe passage is the main objective. However, sidewalks aren't the only factor in safe access. And it is a plus that where youre walking is at least somewhat appealing.
2) you're walking because you like being out in your community or whereever you're visiting. In a car, you whiz by a place or are shielded from the area in a way you're not on foot. Having other pedestrians (which = activity) is a huge plus, you get to see other locals going about their day. Not buskers. If you're walking isn't the least bit interesting or appealing, why would I care about walking there? For most, people aren't going to choose walking if it takes much longer. But walking past an area that's ugly and no other people isn't going to be walkability I'm as interested in; I have a car.
Why focus on the types of stores? Amount of other people on the street, interesting architecture, and just stores against the street are mentioned plenty of times.
I think many posters care more about 2. I care about 2 more, but 1 is still important. Sometimes the walking environment switches to less appealing but I'm already, I want to safely walk on the road and cross.
Yeh, if someone wrote "if I had my way I would limit car use " let alone ban it there wouuld be lots of angry posts
The urban planning forum is filled with anti-car posts. There are plenty of posts on closing streets to cars, making streets smaller to increase congestion for cars, increasing gas taxes with the goal of decreasing car traffic, eliminating parking lots under the pre-text of "urban fabric" in order to make areas less accessible to cars. Not sure that the responses are "angry" just that they see through the chaff.
The urban planning forum is filled with anti-car posts. There are plenty of posts on closing streets to cars, making streets smaller to increase congestion for cars, increasing gas taxes with the goal of decreasing car traffic, eliminating parking lots under the pre-text of "urban fabric" in order to make areas less accessible to cars. Not sure that the responses are "angry" just that they see through the chaff.
You realize that the very posters who are the ones who state what you listed will come on and deny ever having said or proposed any of it.
Then, when you go back and find the quotes, you'll be accused of taking them out of context.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
