Re: [carfree_cities] Bicycling, road hogs, & LA
- 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.