Re: [carfree_cities] Bicycling, road hogs, & LA
- On Aug 14, 2007, at 9:03 AM, Jym Dyer wrote:
> | Bicyclists and runners just want to share the pavementAnd I'm not sure that runners have the same right to a lane as
> | with drivers. They're entitled, right?
> =v= This is weird. Pretty much a straightforward story about
> bikers' rights to the road, with "and runners" tacked on
> throughout. It's NOT good to simply lump runners in with us,
> since that detracts from the whole point.
bicyclists absolutely do. However, the fact that they're addressing
bicyclists' rights in any kind of positive and semi-intelligent way
is a big step forward for the post-Tribune_purchase LA Times!
Scott, the fellow they interviewed, is an acquaintance of mine.
Anyway, the cagers are getting desperate here as they get more and
more in each other's way, veering over the abyss of cognitive
dissonance as they try to blame anyone else for their discomfort.
- I find it very interesting to see how much respect for road users on
bikes varies with the level of infrastructure for serious (i.e. non-
recreational) cycling in a city. In both Winnipeg, Manitoba -- a car-
centric city where biking infrastructure is nearly nonexistent --,
and Washington DC, with only a few painted bike lanes in the inner
city, I found myself, when I was on my bike, subjected to yelled
insults from drivers and physical assaults with thrown bottles,
squirt guns and so on.
Not so in Montreal, where there is a fairly respectable cycling
infrastructure and large numbers of cyclists in the summer (and a
fair number in the depths of winter as well): motorists here are much
better about sharing the streets and bike lanes are fairly well
respected. Of course, this all pales in comparison with the Dutch
cities I have lived in, where cycling is seen as a normal everyday
way of commuting for all ages and is given the respect it deserves in
urban transportation infrastructure. ,_._,___
Montreal QC Canada
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> And I'm not sure that runners have the same right to a lane=v= As per the California Vehicle Code, they don't. That's
> as bicyclists absolutely do.
why I don't think it's so great to lump bikers and runners in
together. Too many motorists are already ignorant of bikers'
rights to the road, and I fear this will confuse them.
> However, the fact that they're addressing bicyclists' rights=v= They did a pretty wacky story about Critical Mass last
> in any kind of positive and semi-intelligent way is a big
> step forward for the post-Tribune_purchase LA Times!
Sunday. It looks as if it was written 10 years ago, plus
a handful of recent factoids thrown it. It painted a very
strange picture of the San Francisco ride, and you'd barely
know there were several of them going on in L.A.