BIKE: Statesman Editorial: Cyclists: Be Careful

[Daniel Norton]

Thorne wrote: 
> it is almost never unreasonable for people to walk side by side, as 
> people have been doing for 250,000 years

It's unreasonable to walk three-abreast on the Town Lake hike and bike
trail.  It's unreasonable to walk on the left.  These are all natural things
to do on a hiking-only trail, but it's *not* a  hiking-only trail we're
talking about.  The problem is that pedestrians treat it as such and the
solution is to raise awareness that the path has traffic rules that should
be followed.

> If you are riding to get somewhere or riding to get a workout, the 
> hike/bike paths generally don't fit your needs.

Perhaps they don't, but they should.

> Most streets do.

No, they don't.  Follow the discussions on this list to gain an
understanding of the myriad problems of biking on roads.

Why don't you apply the same arguments to cars on roads as you to do bikers
on hike and bike trails?

> For the cyclist on a bike/ped pathway, if you are frustrated that you 
> can't move along at your chosen speed because of peds or other 
> hazards, recognize that you may be biking in the wrong place for your 
> style of riding,

Then why call it a "hike and bike path?"  I don't consider it acceptable to
be given a "hike and bike path" that doesn't allow biking.  I'm no speed
demon.  I'm on a hybrid and I rarely go above 15 mph on the road -- I'd be
quite happy with a 10 mph limit on the path.

> and I'm just talking here about saving your own neck and not at all of 
> rudeness or giving cyclists a bad name, which I think is where this 
> discussion started.

No one here has suggested that the cyclist originally mentioned was in the
right.  Safety should always come first.  I'd just like to be able to bike
safely on the hike and bike path with others who are willing to (and aware
that they should) share the path.

--
Daniel Norton