Page 2 of 40
Re: Bike Lanes
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:54 pm
by chingon
KCMax wrote:
Read any comments section of any article about a cyclist struck by a car. Its always the cyclists fault, people hate that cyclists dress up, and people love to tell stories about some cyclist they saw not following the law. Its awful.
Just to keep the keel even, the comments section of online papers is IN NO WAY reflective of what "most people" in a given media market think.
Re: Bike Lanes
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:54 pm
by WSPanic
KCMax wrote:earthling wrote:Demosthenes wrote:I know that the average person in Kansas City is against bicycles in general and think they get in the way, and that bike lanes would be a waste of money
Average person? I don't think I've ever heard a single person in KC say they are against bicycles.
Read any comments section of any article about a cyclist struck by a car. Its always the cyclists fault, people hate that cyclists dress up, and people love to tell stories about some cyclist they saw not following the law. Its awful.
Read the comments section of any article and you're bound to find the most ridiculous, over the top "opinions" that have little to do with what the average person thinks or believes.
Overall, I think both cyclists and motorists in this town have a lot to learn about peacefully co-existing on the roads.
Re: Bike Lanes
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:26 pm
by earthling
WSPanic wrote:
Overall, I think both cyclists and motorists in this town have a lot to learn about peacefully co-existing on the roads.
Why do you say 'this town' as if it is unique to KC, there are problems in every town. Even SF doesn't peacefully co-exist and has a mature bike path system. Many die a year and about 50 or so are injured weekly with car injury. Seems to me KC actually has less problems with cyclists without paths. On road bike paths can provide a false sense of security as some cyclists are then not paying attention to cars.
Re: Bike Lanes
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:42 pm
by pash
.
Re: Bike Lanes
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:17 pm
by Demosthenes
Awesome article Pash. Near the end of the article he mentions traffic lights that are timed to the speed of bikes, not cars. Anyone heard of this?
Re: Bike Lanes
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:09 pm
by WSPanic
earthling wrote:WSPanic wrote:
Overall, I think both cyclists and motorists in this town have a lot to learn about peacefully co-existing on the roads.
Why do you say 'this town' as if it is unique to KC, there are problems in every town. Even SF doesn't peacefully co-exist and has a mature bike path system. Many die a year and about 50 or so are injured weekly with car injury. Seems to me KC actually has less problems with cyclists without paths. On road bike paths can provide a false sense of security as some cyclists are then not paying attention to cars.
Did I say it was unique to KC? I only said "this town" because that's where I experience this on a daily basis. Nothing derogatory intended.
I mean, it's not like I said, "you people."
Re: Bike Lanes
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:58 am
by SWFan
pash wrote:If Kant Were a New York Cyclist
THE rule-breaking cyclist that people decry: that’s me. I routinely run red lights ...
But although it is illegal, I believe it is ethical. ...
I roll through a red light if and only if no pedestrian is in the crosswalk and no car is in the intersection — that is, if it will not endanger myself or anybody else. To put it another way, I treat red lights and stop signs as if they were yield signs. A fundamental concern of ethics is the effect of our actions on others. My actions harm no one. ...
But most of the resentment of rule-breaking riders like me, I suspect, derives from a false analogy: conceiving of bicycles as akin to cars. In this view, bikes must be regulated like cars, and vilified when riders flout those regulations, as if we were cunningly getting away with something. But bikes are not cars. Cars drive three or four times as fast and weigh 200 times as much. Drive dangerously, you’re apt to injure others; ride dangerously, I’m apt to injure myself. I have skin in the game. And blood. And bones.
Nor are cyclists pedestrians, of course (at least not while we’re pedaling). We are a third thing, a distinct mode of transportation, requiring different practices and different rules. ...
For a number of years I biked for exercise in the Northland, usually north of MO-152, though unfortunately it has been about three years since I last rode. I always obeyed the traffic lights. I never once rolled through one. I don't really agree with that author's take on biking. I believe as bicyclists we should obey the rules of the road as if we're in a car.
Re: Bike Lanes
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:14 pm
by shinatoo
I support cycling, I believe people should be bike aware, but I see bicyclist run stop signs all the time. Just do cry about cars if you want to run the risk of being hit by one.
Re: Bike Lanes
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:16 am
by TheBigChuckbowski
I just visited San Francisco and their bike network is amazing and wouldn't be super expensive to replicate. They had designated bike highways with signs at every corner and plenty of green paint on the road. The steep hills make SF a very difficult city to bike in but there were a shit ton of people biking to work. There were periods where I could see 30 bikes or more on the road on one block. It also signals to cars that if they don't want to deal with cyclists, they should use another road.
Re: Bike Lanes
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:35 pm
by taxi
I was in SF about 6 months ago and was amazed at the amount of bikers, for several reasons:
it is sooooo hilly
they were almost all wearing all black
very few wore helmets
Re: Bike Lanes
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:45 pm
by chrizow
taxi wrote:
they were almost all wearing all black
very few wore helmets
those were actually ninjas.
Re: Bike Lanes
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:07 pm
by kcjak
Aside from the hilliness and biker dress code, SF shouldn't be compared to someplace like KC, although I would love for KC to have that network and biking community. But there the high cost of living, price of gas and lack of space prevents most people from owning cars.
Re: Bike Lanes
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:25 pm
by TheBigChuckbowski
kcjak wrote:Aside from the hilliness and biker dress code, SF shouldn't be compared to someplace like KC, although I would love for KC to have that network and biking community. But there the high cost of living, price of gas and lack of space prevents most people from owning cars.
On the other hand, their transit is so good and fast, it's almost as good as having a car (other than for things you wouldn't do on a bike anyway).
My point was more that what they have is such a low-cost thing, I don't know why every city doesn't do it. You don't need expensive trails, wider roads to accommodate bike lanes, bike lanes on every road, etc. You need signs and paint on a few key roads. Also, if you funnel all the bikes into one place, people will see this and feel safe because there's so many bikes already on the road which will cause more bikes to be on the road. I don't think bike lanes make people bike. I think other people biking makes people bike.
Re: Bike Lanes
Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:16 pm
by flyingember
North Oak Briarcliff to Indianola now has bike lanes on both sides.
Re: Bike Lanes
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 6:35 pm
by KCPowercat
Anybody else have opinions on what they did on Southwest Blvd? Personally I think it sucks. Half assed attempt at bike lanes/shallows.
Re: Bike Lanes
Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:05 pm
by flyingember
they're only repainting roar repavings the new way
luckily they're accelerating repaving roads.
what doesn't make sense is why there's a middle turn lane in a segment with little places to turn
Re: Bike Lanes
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:38 am
by smh
KCPowercat wrote:Anybody else have opinions on what they did on Southwest Blvd? Personally I think it sucks. Half assed attempt at bike lanes/shallows.
Can you elaborate?
Re: Bike Lanes
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:21 am
by flyingember
smh wrote:KCPowercat wrote:Anybody else have opinions on what they did on Southwest Blvd? Personally I think it sucks. Half assed attempt at bike lanes/shallows.
Can you elaborate?
they put bike lanes for like two blocks. apparently on the outside of the bike lane is a parking lane when becomes a driving lane during certain hours of the day. so paint is all that keeps cars from hitting a biker on two sides.
other than the two blocks it's sharrows in the existing configuration.
Re: Bike Lanes
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:53 am
by smh
flyingember wrote:smh wrote:KCPowercat wrote:Anybody else have opinions on what they did on Southwest Blvd? Personally I think it sucks. Half assed attempt at bike lanes/shallows.
Can you elaborate?
they put bike lanes for like two blocks. apparently on the outside of the bike lane is a parking lane when becomes a driving lane during certain hours of the day. so paint is all that keeps cars from hitting a biker on two sides.
other than the two blocks it's sharrows in the existing configuration.
I'm aware of this. I was just wondering if KCP had any additional insight.
Re: Bike Lanes
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:45 pm
by KCPowercat
Yeah... I think it was poorly executed. What additional insight were you looking for?