[SDCBC] curb cuts, was Re: Anyone notice the commentary in the Union

[Jim Baross]

Thanks for the examples.
Were the bicyclists shown riding toward you riding on the wrong side 
of that ridge-separated path or was the left side for pedestrians?

Beginning rant warning -

About curb cuts... I'm afraid that many of the barriers to entry 
and/or exit from segregated (Bike Lanes and cycle-tracks) and/or 
separated (Bike Paths and some cycle-tracks) facilities for bicycling 
are needed because, in too many cases, the intersection of the 
special facility with the street is not designed to accommodate 
riding connectivity; with curb cuts bicyclists would be/are often 
encouraged to "ride out" into traffic with no traffic controls in 
existence as would normally be designed in and used for an 
intersection of two roads. "Ride-outs" are a major mistake 
bicyclists, especially kids, make leading to collisions. Yes, 
educating folks about ride-out dangers would help and 
we/SDCBC/CABO/CBC/LAB support more education efforts, but no one is 
designing vehicular intersections without controls (stop signs, 
signals, etc.) and expecting education to solve/reduce conflicts!

Bike Paths like the one along Hwy 56 only (mostly?) provide for 
Mid-block pedestrian-style connections; as I recall, connecting to 
sidewalks and only allowing legal street crossings at standard 
intersections in crosswalks (is it legal to ride in a crosswalk - 
there is no Statewide agency agreement!) located some distance from 
the actual path connection with the streets. The Coalition tried to 
get sufficient funding directed to provide a path that, as with roads 
designed for vehicular travel, you didn't have to stop, get out/off 
of your bike (or car) to become a pedestrian, and then cross the 
intersecting roads.

We got what you might say the government decided was what most people 
wanted; a lot spent to keep cars moving fast and a tiny fraction to 
provide for bicycling.  :-(
Until we get better at convincing "government"/more people that 
bicycling is clean, efficient transportation for many trips, we won't 
get appropriate encouragement, design accommodation, acceptance by 
other road users, etc. AND, my major fear, we will get *special* less 
efficient, even less safe, bicycling facilities that force us to "the 
back of the bus" accommodations.

We can be grateful for the special facilities we got... but, I am not 
content with third class (behind motor and pedestrian traffic) 
treatment for a first class (bicycling) travel mode.

Ride more. Be visible *ambassadors" of competent/legal/courteous road 
use by bicyclists. Speak up as a squeaky-wheel (but courteously if 
you have trouble controlling your temper) to anyone, but especially 
to folks who have decision making authority about surface 
transportation issues - city councilmembers, mayors, other elected 
officials. Vote for a cleaner/cooler planet where people can choose 
to bike anywhere, anytime.

End rant -

Jim (may we all ride more in the New Year) Baross

At 06:47 AM 12/14/2007, Gene Carman wrote:
>Sadly, I tend to agree that the US, and California in particular, is 
>no where near being a ped/cycling culture.  And the newest bike path 
>in the Bonita area really reminds me of this: