Sidewalks again...

Deciding how to respond to this newscast - we can "learn a lesson" from the recent injuries and fatalities... the lesson - ride closer to the curb!! Two of three wrecks happened to cyclists on *sidewalks,* the other a hit and run on a wide, EMPTY road... but no, we should learn our place and (kidja not) that drivers have every bit the same right to our lane as we do = implying that they have the right to be in the same exact lane at the same exact time as we do, so we'd better get out of the way. (No mention of 3-food passing law.)

http://www.wicd15.com/newsroom/top_s..._vid_625.shtml

Yes, they have the law *wrong.* Oh, and this is a councilman who rides a bicycle ... don't know if he bobs and weaves or simply only goes out on training rides in the country but I hate that drivers will see this and think "See? I was right! They're not allowed to slow me down! If they're 'impeding traffic' it's illegal!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geonz

(No mention of 3-food passing law.)

---

Sorry, Had to laugh! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geonz

Deciding how to respond to this newscast - we can "learn a lesson" from the recent injuries and fatalities... the lesson - ride closer to the curb!! Two of three wrecks happened to cyclists on *sidewalks,* the other a hit and run on a wide, EMPTY road... but no, we should learn our place and (kidja not) that drivers have every bit the same right to our lane as we do = implying that they have the right to be in the same exact lane at the same exact time as we do, so we'd better get out of the way. (No mention of 3-food passing law.)

http://www.wicd15.com/newsroom/top_s..._vid_625.shtml

Yes, they have the law *wrong.* Oh, and this is a councilman who rides a bicycle ... don't know if he bobs and weaves or simply only goes out on training rides in the country but I hate that drivers will see this and think "See? I was right! They're not allowed to slow me down! If they're 'impeding traffic' it's illegal!"

---

Yeah, the news media gets it wrong pretty frequently. They *almost* had it right (as did the guys they interviewed).
Most bike laws say as far to the right as practicable (which is sort of a strange term). Sometimes that means the middle of the road!!
And as to the "impeding traffic"...two riders may ride two abreast unless they impede traffic. Then they may not. A single rider may be forced to impede traffic. If so, then cars have the obligation to go around in a LEGAL PASSING MOTION.
And (at least in Texas) you gotta have a light in front, a reflector behind if you ride at night. A light behind preferably.
Sigh. Journalists. They sure don't help much.

One of the nice things about Arkansas is that we're one of nine states that has no restrictions on cyclists such as riding as far to the right as practicable, mandatory bike lane or side path laws... And in a nice phrasing, you can't be accused of impeding traffic if you're not driving a motor vehicle ;-)

No state law that say you can't ride on the sidewalks, but then there's no law that says you can't drive your car there, either!

Welp, we've been working hard and making headway with other folks -- but alas, this is a councilman who rides a bicycle and so might be assumed to know something (tho', I hear, he's not really respected in general).

Sue, I think it's time you ran for City Council. Seriously. If I lived there, I'd work for your election!

There's NO cycling anyone in Richmond on the Council. And Richmond could be such a cool bike city if anyone in power gave a hoot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tulip

Sue, I think it's time you ran for City Council. Seriously. If I lived there, I'd work for your election!

There's NO cycling anyone in Richmond on the Council. And Richmond could be such a cool bike city if anyone in power gave a hoot.

---

I used to live in Richmond and I know what you mean.

Champaign & Urbana are two side-by-side cities. I'm in the affectionately designated "people's republic of Urbana" -- where I am on the Bicycling & Pedestrian Advisory Commission that reports to the city council and is often attended by planners, some of whom are amazing advocates for cycling (one of whom is moving away soon, AAARRGGH!!!) The Champaign council is not interested in such an entity and prefers to have loose "plans" that don't inconvenience the business entities with things like providing bicycle parking.

However, I think it's worse when the "cyclist" on the council is broadcasting misinformation that endangers our lives. Makes us all look like we don't know what we're talking about.

Ooooo :eek: have to chime in after going to the city council meeting last night and raising my cane :D:D:mad:

got the old arguments "bicyclist never heed the law and run the stop signs ALL THE time" needless to say this old geezer was no friend of cyclists.

I reminded every one that putting a sharrow sign where they want will not result in all cyclists to turn into lemmings and follow the sharrows mindlessly. The cyclists are going to use the road they find convenient for them just like every one else...

I also reminded the council member that most drivers in our areas do not come to a complete stop. EVERYONE does the California roll/stop through the stop sign and I also don't know of any driver who would be so happy to receive a moving violation for running a stop sign. (rebuttal to the comment that cyclists are hostile to the law enforcement when they get a ticket) And did he expect that cyclists who receive a moving violation are going to be happy about it?

I wish I wasn't so tired last night at the council meeting. Otherwise, I would have really blasted the bike UN-FRIENDLY council members. The proposed bike master plan was approved. It still needs fixin' cause they have designated a MUT as a class 1 bike path. Technicallity.

smilingcat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geonz

Champaign & Urbana are two side-by-side cities. I'm in the affectionately designated "people's republic of Urbana" -- where I am on the Bicycling & Pedestrian Advisory Commission that reports to the city council and is often attended by planners, some of whom are amazing advocates for cycling (one of whom is moving away soon, AAARRGGH!!!) The Champaign council is not interested in such an entity and prefers to have loose "plans" that don't inconvenience the business entities with things like providing bicycle parking.

However, I think it's worse when the "cyclist" on the council is broadcasting misinformation that endangers our lives. Makes us all look like we don't know what we're talking about.

---

Hopefully over time, the Commission will continue to exist. Does the organization have its own internet blog to keep locals updated? Otherwise people are not aware of the good work that you do or maybe that's already well-covered via a different mechanism for marketing/public relations?

Politics is such annoyance when cycling politicians shoot themselves in the foot, so to speak or hit on each other for political reasons.

The Vancouver city council is politicized, which does not help solving municipal problems and issues more quickly at times. There are several politicians that bike to work regularily, including the mayor himself.

One of the politicians for several years had been openly supportive of various major bike planning initiatives, recently did a nearly 330 degree turn..against a cycling initiative that she supported. Only because she belonged to another political party. There's no other compelling reason since she herself is a regular cyclist and cycling tourer.

The Bicycle Advisory Committee is made up of 10 members (i think) which does include a range of different folks with different backgrounds. Recently it did become abit of a competition to apply in writing, be reviewed and to be selected to become a member. Not all applicants are successful. This is the level of cycling advocacy interest in Vancouver, compared to several years ago.

I hear bits and pieces of developments because my partner is a member. But I must admit, I like more fun stuff. Well, at least, maybe getting some background history behind the 'fun stuff'. :D

Quote:

---

I wish I wasn't so tired last night at the council meeting. Otherwise, I would have really blasted the bike UN-FRIENDLY council members. The proposed bike master plan was approved. It still needs fixin' cause they have designated a MUT as a class 1 bike path. Technicallity.

smilingcat

---

Congrats. smilingcat on approval of bike master plan. What is the best part of the plan that you like?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shootingstar

Congrats. smilingcat on approval of bike master plan. What is the best part of the plan that you like?

---

My city now has a bike master plan. And it didn't get shredded at th council meeting. and a unanimous vote of "aye" to the plan :D :D :D.

I have an interesting question...

Could you please tell me if your city/town has footpaths on both sides of the road?

It came up in my tranpsortation class today about why we (perth) don't(doesn't) have footpaths on both sides & wondered if it's the same in other countries?

Just wondering

They were SO close, most of the facts were correct (except for staying over by the curb and 90 degree turns? I don't know that one) but it was obviously BIASED. You need to do something about this. Is there a cycling club or forum in Champaign? Start an email or letter writing campaign. Contact the councilman and the newspaper with the facts (preferably something from your Driver's manual and the League of American Cyclists). And send a copy to the League of Illinois cyclists. They also pointed out they are applying for the national designation and need to know that disseminating improper information could affect their "bike safe" designation.

Unfortunately, you can't do anything about the media--no one even reads the corrections. But I would point out to them, that more people will be hurt as a result of their shoddy information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazycanuck

I have an interesting question...

Could you please tell me if your city/town has footpaths on both sides of the road?

It came up in my tranpsortation class today about why we (perth) don't(doesn't) have footpaths on both sides & wondered if it's the same in other countries?

Just wondering

---

By "footpaths," is that the same thing we call "sidewalks" in the USA? Or is it more like a wider, multi-use path?

There's no national standard here. But outside of major cities and the downtown areas of small towns, most places I know of in the USA have no sidewalks at all. When there are sidewalks, I think it's more common that they're on both sides of the street, but it's not that uncommon to have a sidewalk on just one side.

Yes, sidewalks...(or as ian likes to say " sidewarks" to make fun of my canucklehead accent) :)