Another cyclist hit this morning.... (Huntsville, Anderson: legal, safer, transport)

[Nlambert]

You're yet again showing how little you know about our area. In the areas where semis frequent, (which is MOSTLY I565) it's a 4 lane interstate. Where we are all talking about are two lane backroads where it's not common to see semis. Furthermore, you are GUESSING at what it costs to add shoulders to existing roads. The cost is more than you think. Explain how it makes sense to spend our tax dollars adding shoulders to miles of backroads so that 20-30 cyclists per month can use them. Your argument is invalid.

[Lamar Bowman]

Originally Posted by Nlambert

You're yet again showing how little you know about our area. In the areas where semis frequent, (which is MOSTLY I565) it's a 4 lane interstate. Where we are all talking about are two lane backroads where it's not common to see semis. Furthermore, you are GUESSING at what it costs to add shoulders to existing roads. The cost is more than you think. Explain how it makes sense to spend our tax dollars adding shoulders to miles of backroads so that 20-30 cyclists per month can use them. Your argument is invalid.

You do realize this guy is going to argue until he gets the last word, right?

[Nlambert]

Yep. I've read his other threads too.

[shyguylh]

Yes, I am pretty insistent. However, I think this thread is starting to wind down, and hopefully we (and that includes me) can keep it somewhat civil.

If you are referring to ADDING shoulders to already existing roads, I can surmise that probably is rather costly. I wouldn't be surprised--there are many things in life I've noticed that are easier to do initially than they are to try and patch up later. It is tempting to gloss it over with the idea of "we can always add it later," but typically you never do, and often-times it's because adding it later is more burdensome than the extra burden that was required to just do it to start with. So that wouldn't surprise me.

I am more of the mentality that the roads should've had shoulders to start with, I just can't imagine that the roads would've been that much more expensive just adding that little bit. The width of the shoulders vs the width of the entire road (2 lanes, 2 narrow shoulders), I can't imagine it's more than, say, 10% or so. When the difference is that minimal, yes, just go ahead and do it already, right from the start.

Otherwise, if the road engineers are too cheap to do that (like those in NM were too cheap to add W and E to the numbers on the sign so you'd know which was east & which was west), you are left with two competing choices--(a) people will have to swallow the aggravation of cyclists because the engineers were too cheap to spend the extra 10% or so, or (b) cyclists will just have to stay off the roads altogether. You say (b), I say (a), basically. That is especially so if the aggravation is minimal in terms of that the cyclists are keeping to the right as much as possible and not doing the "3 riding abreast" thing. (I never do ride "abreast" with others, I ride alone, and I keep very much to the right. I only ride all over the road on the most deserted of roads, ones where you could easily go 5-10 minutes and not see a car.)

Either way, it's just wrong--people shouldn't have to tolerate being slowed down to a large degree (if it's a few seconds, get over it), and/or people such as cyclists, joggers etc shouldn't have to stay off a country road altogether. Making every road a 4-lane highway so you don't become stuck behind semis, I can imagine that's expensive, and if the roads rarely have semis on them as you say, then by all means let's not do that. But come on, you are never going to convince me it's THAT much more expensive to design, what, a 2 foot wide shoulder on a road that's already, what, 25 feet wide to start with. It's one thing to be thrifty and sensible, it's another to be a hardcore cheapskate to the point of being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

[DvlsAdvc8]

Originally Posted by shyguylh

Even if some of what you say makes logical sense, the thing I keep coming back to is how I've had it be where I and others have cycled on suitable roads along the lines of what you're saying and people STILL threw a fit. You say that cyclists know no limits in terms of where to bicycle, but at times it seems as if no matter where you cycle someone is upset. You could bike-ride in your private drive, it seems, and someone is still going to be upset.

Objectivity is helpful. Realize you're doing the reasonable thing picking suitable roads with shoulders, and those who object to your being there are on the unreasonable side. I don't think a cyclist should avoid my road because I'm upset about it, I think they should avoid my road because its dangerous for them and everyone else... and honestly, even a bit rude to obstruct traffic on a narrow road for a hobby.

Originally Posted by shyguylh

At the same time, once I found the more secluded roads, I switched over to them, and that was fine to me.

My objection isn't about secluded or busy roads. My only concern is whether the road has a shoulder, good visibility, and the cyclist isn't obstructing traffic. Whether the road is busy or not doesn't really matter to me if the cyclist isn't creating a bad situation.

Originally Posted by shyguylh

As for the shoulders--I'm just not buying that shoulders are THAT much more expensive than roads without them, especially ones that can handle a bicycle as small as they are.

They are. Figure two shoulders and you're almost doubling the area of the road surface. Even if you're only going to do one side, and have "half a shoulder" that only a bicycle could fit in, where are you going to get the money to upgrade all of these roads. Transportation budgets are already strapped wherever you go. It's just not going to happen.

Originally Posted by shyguylh

Also, if the roads in question are handling a lot of semis, there should be 4 lanes NO EXCUSES, no matter the cost. You want the traffic to stop being impeded? Then stop making people tolerate semis slowing things down, because that really backs up traffic terribly, way more than any bicycle. It's just a totally unacceptable situation to ask people to get stuck behind semis like a parade, no matter how necessary they are deemed to be. There should be room for people to go around them. That way, they (the semis) can do their job, and people can get on with their lives.

There are no semis on any of such cyclist unfriendly roads I'm referring to. Certainly none on my road. For a semi to get bogged down, you're talking about a pretty significant grade where the speed limits are already pretty low, and even then they generally manage 35-40 mph... a quite tolerable speed for a short stretch. Even experienced cyclists are generally only doing about 20 mph on flat road... an intolerable difference from even a 40 mph limit. Introduce some hills, such as my road has, and its even worse. Moreover, semis are specifically forbidden from taking certain routes... but advocate the same for bicyclists and everyone loses their mind.

[Nlambert]

One other thing to consider is that the shoulders around here have warning grooves in them. I doubt very seriously a cyclist is going to want to ride over those things.

The roads I am talking about are 16 ft wide. So adding 4 ft to those would be a costly venture, even if building a brand new road. I too would question where the funds would come from to cover those additions. Alabama is strapped for cash and taxes are high enough.

I could see why NM wouldn't want to add the lettering, as it's an added cost that would provide very minimal benefit. Most newer vehicles come equipped with a compass, all smartphones have GPS capabilities, many watches have a compass, and you can buy a compass for your bike very cheaply.

At the end of the day, I could care less if a cyclist is riding on a road. What I DO care about (when this got completely sidetracked) is that they do so in such a way that promotes a safe environment both for the cyclist and the vehicles who have to share the road with them. Why ask everyone else to bend for the cyclist who is practicing their hobby and have everyone who HAS to travel the roads in vehicles to just deal with it? There are tons of other areas they could ride that are much safer all the way around.

[DvlsAdvc8]

Originally Posted by shyguylh

It's one thing to be thrifty and sensible, it's another to be a hardcore cheapskate to the point of being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

FYI, I'm not aware of any new roads that are built without some sort of shoulder. But the fact of the matter is most of these roads were built before there were pretty much ANY cyclists. They were built when this was a very rural area and had so little traffic that a shoulder wasn't really necessary or cost-effective for sparse population.

Cyclists choose them because they're scenic and flow with the land as old roads tend to do. Part of my point is that if you made my road conform to modern road standards, the cyclists would probably go look for another "old road". Otherwise, they'd be riding one of the many existing "modern roads".

I'm just saying ride where it makes sense to. Don't ride a narrow old road with poor sightlines, creating a dangerous situation for everyone and a major annoyance for those of us who live there, just for aesthetics. If you're riding for the scenery, get a motorcycle.

[Jim Ward]

Originally Posted by Lamar Bowman

You do realize this guy is going to argue until he gets the last word, right?

You got that right. Maybe he will bike on one of the really dangerous roads!

[shyguylh]

Originally Posted by Nlambert

I could see why NM wouldn't want to add the lettering, as it's an added cost that would provide very minimal benefit. Most newer vehicles come equipped with a compass, all smartphones have GPS capabilities, many watches have a compass, and you can buy a compass for your bike very cheaply.

Oh my goodness, you can't be serious. First-off, that was years ago before GPS was common. Second, I'm not a Boy Scout, I shouldn't have to whip out a compass in the middle of my driving and risk crashing when you can get off your lazy booty and put a freaking E or W on a sign. What am I, a land surveyor or something?

Besides, why stop there? Why bother having a road sign of any kind at all, period, if a GPS will tell you the road name anyway? Why bother having a line down the middle of the road, doesn't everyone know that you're supposed to drive on the right side of the road? Why bother having signs telling people there's a curve ahead, can't they see the curve anyway? Why bother having 2 or 3 stop lights at an intersection, isn't one enough? Why bother having "PED XING" on the road, can't one tell it's a pedestrian crossing anyway with the lights overhead?

I mean, you might as well.

No, that was just stupid, and it stands out precisely because I had never seen anything like it before, and I don't think I've seen it since either. If you're too cheap or lazy to add E or W to a 2-digit number, you have no business being in the highway engineering business any at all whatsoever. There's thrifty, and economical, and there's just plain stupid. That was just plain stupid.

[Reactionary]

Lamar Bowman - good call. That guy can't help himself.