No, we get your point, but your sensationalist approach greatly clouds any validity you have within your point. And I'll echo that your comparison of cycling infrastructure to Rosa Parks not only is further sensationalism, but an offensive, ignorant position, comparing a morally depraved situation to preferred and ideal civic design opinions. It's not the first time you've pulled out such an absurd reference on this thread, but again, you seem more hell bent on doing that and speaking your mind than you do of acknowledging that there's a partnership cyclists must also engage in. I say this as an avid cyclist who's well over the N+1 limit (N=the number of bikes your spouse is comfortable with and N+1 equalling the number of bikes at which your relationship may suffer...if they know that there's a +1).
Topics that a person cares about are always at a "critical juncture," and there's never enough satisfaction despite any progress. I can appreciate that, but it doesn't make the ability of bikes to travel on roadways as ominous as you make it out to be, or the relationship of governmental policy to cycling. In my area we have a lot of dialogue from the city, county, and state when planning new roadway infrastructure; new trails have been put in; large tracts of state forest have mountain bike trails that are endorsed by the natural resources department and they even groom trails for fat-bike cyclists in the winter, we have more bike lanes going in along new road construction than we ever have, and on and on. The fact of the matter is that you're reaching and making the problem out to be much greater than it is, making it out to be a sort of war on cyclists. That's not the case. Is it ideal? No. Should we advocate for improvement? Yep. Should we do our part to be good partners and improve the appetite for cyclists on shared roads? Absofuckinglutely.
You guys are still thinking I'm missing your obvious point and are still missing my point entirely. Perhaps some context will help.
Cyclist advocacy in the United States is at a critical juncture. In the last 10 years a lot of progress has been made in the main effort to retain and expand recognition and acceptance of bicyclists as normal and reasonable traffic on roadways in the public right of way, and to broaden understanding of how full lane use improved safety and comfort in all kinds of traffic. We're just starting to see the first blossoms of all this work, but there are dark and ominous clouds on the horizon.
After about 10 years of efforts shared lane markings (sharrows) and bikes may use full lane signs finally were approved at the federal level (MUTCD) around 2008 and 2010 respectively (I might be off a few years - sorry). Since then states have started approving them and installing them. But it takes time for them to take effect. Many bicyclists still tend to cling to the edge of the road even in the presence of these things, and then wondering why they experience no difference from motorist behavior.
In the mean time the usual suspect are still doing everything they can to get bicyclists off the roads, including cooperating with the segregated infrastructure industrial complex whose latest boondoggle initiative is the rebranding and marketing of the side path as the so-called "protected bike lane".
It's from this perspective that it's difficult to see a cyclist criticized for his choice to use the full lane. Of course some motorists won't like it. But to say that's reason for him to get on the shoulder is like saying Rosa Parks should get on the back of the bus.
Topics that a person cares about are always at a "critical juncture," and there's never enough satisfaction despite any progress. I can appreciate that, but it doesn't make the ability of bikes to travel on roadways as ominous as you make it out to be, or the relationship of governmental policy to cycling. In my area we have a lot of dialogue from the city, county, and state when planning new roadway infrastructure; new trails have been put in; large tracts of state forest have mountain bike trails that are endorsed by the natural resources department and they even groom trails for fat-bike cyclists in the winter, we have more bike lanes going in along new road construction than we ever have, and on and on. The fact of the matter is that you're reaching and making the problem out to be much greater than it is, making it out to be a sort of war on cyclists. That's not the case. Is it ideal? No. Should we advocate for improvement? Yep. Should we do our part to be good partners and improve the appetite for cyclists on shared roads? Absofuckinglutely.
Ninety5rpm wrote:
You guys are still thinking I'm missing your obvious point and are still missing my point entirely. Perhaps some context will help.
Cyclist advocacy in the United States is at a critical juncture. In the last 10 years a lot of progress has been made in the main effort to retain and expand recognition and acceptance of bicyclists as normal and reasonable traffic on roadways in the public right of way, and to broaden understanding of how full lane use improved safety and comfort in all kinds of traffic. We're just starting to see the first blossoms of all this work, but there are dark and ominous clouds on the horizon.
After about 10 years of efforts shared lane markings (sharrows) and bikes may use full lane signs finally were approved at the federal level (MUTCD) around 2008 and 2010 respectively (I might be off a few years - sorry). Since then states have started approving them and installing them. But it takes time for them to take effect. Many bicyclists still tend to cling to the edge of the road even in the presence of these things, and then wondering why they experience no difference from motorist behavior.
In the mean time the usual suspect are still doing everything they can to get bicyclists off the roads, including cooperating with the segregated infrastructure industrial complex whose latest boondoggle initiative is the rebranding and marketing of the side path as the so-called "protected bike lane".
It's from this perspective that it's difficult to see a cyclist criticized for his choice to use the full lane. Of course some motorists won't like it. But to say that's reason for him to get on the shoulder is like saying Rosa Parks should get on the back of the bus.
