I've been using my bike on roads with autos for my entire life. If you don't want to ride on roads, fine. But many people do, and we love it. Thanks.

But I agree with creating more bike facilities, especially Class 1 paths.

There are dedicated bike paths which are physically separated.....the path along the Sprinter train rails is a good example.

A good similarity would make to the I-15, if there was no Lake Hodges; MTS would find the politicos to assist in getting funds so to build a bike path from San Diego to Escondido. Hence the parallel path as the future MTS commuter rail will go, to the I-15.

I finally got the chance to concentrate the riding, in the combination of the bus/bike lane: (logo to) Bicycle/Head Logo --- to interpret bicyclist's right-of-way, placed over Bus Logo: is seen from a DIFFERENTLY INTERPRETED PERSPECTIVE, When Anyone Looks Down From Such An Elevation. VS. Than The Lower Elevation That A Bicyclist Will See/Read The Same Logo From/At. THAT IS HEIGHT ALONE; ANGLE IS AN ADDITIONAL ISSUE/DEBATE. /why was the Bicycle Logo ONLY chosen to be placed above the bus logo? There are cyclists who come there for the 1st time, and once they not read Bicycle Logo first, it is immediately perceived that the City has neglected right-of-way to Cyclists. That is how I took it, the first time I drove through such, once I read the logo was there.

Is that you, Burwell??

Class IV cycle tracks, or so-called "protected bike lanes", do not completely separate you from traffic. Worse, they partially separate you, between intersections and driveways, creating a false sense of security, and then suddenly through bicyclists and turning motorists are routed onto a collision course when they're oblivious of each other. What could possibly go wrong?

Here's a scooter rider on a "protected bike lane" the other day in LA demonstrating exactly what the problem is. How do you think they fared?

https://youtu.be/c6tR4WWb31E

Great clip!

The clip looks like me laying down,filming. As I don't see the bike "protected bike lane." What be needed be a view from the small helicopter that strolls in the local 'sphere looking down.

You can see the "protected bike lane" in this Google street view:

https://goo.gl/maps/p4bw6ZNumpDjwchD6

See graphic for crashes. The pie chart on the left shows all crashes and the one on the right expands car-bike crashes only. It divides the car-bike crashes into who was at fault and what the crash was. Separated bikeways do not really reduce the risk of any of these crashes with the exception of the overtaking (from behind) crashes. Those crashes might seem common, given the number of them that occur between motorists but between bicyclist’s they’re incredibly rare.

You need to say way further (explanation) to YOUR WAY DETAILED ANALOGY. That's an over-fruitful pie; I never say a pie of that must taste. (no sic)

Lol no.....a car travels at a much faster speed and is heavy enough to kill you in an instant.,,.those roads are designed for autos....period.....bikes can’t maintain that speed nor survive an accident.....they have no business on the roads.

Cyclists have no need to go as fast as drivers. That's why the bike lanes are invariably off to the side of traffic. Whether the separation is physical or psychological is beside the point. Drivers kill other drivers too so will you advocate for less (or more) cars to help prevent this?

Think of it: the grand majority of cyclists are just a off-breed of car-drivers, temporarily choosing to not drive. (their normal mindset of driving won't change fully)

Roads are for people including those who use bicycles and other slower moving conveyances with the exception of limited access expressways where no other parallel route exists. Bicyclists have had the right to use the public road network since the late 1800’s- far before motor vehicles were popularized and made available for the masses. In fact the rules of the road were developed by a man who never drove a car. He created them to bring some civility to NYC’s streets after the number of conflicts between animal-driven vehicles and bicycles increased.

Roads aren’t designed for cars either. They’re actually designed for the largest vehicle allowed on them. This includes the horizontal and vertical design elements, pavement loads, and lane widths. On some roads that’s emergency vehicles (fire trucks) or utility trucks (garbage trucks) and on others it’s tractor-trailers.

And speaking of the large vehicles, they often cannot “keep up” with other motor traffic. That’s okay however because right of way on roads isn’t based on speed. Speed LIMITS aren’t mandatory goals. Drivers of vehicles operating at slower speeds than others traveling in the same direction are supposed to drive in the right-most lane that serves their destination unless they are preparing to turn left, passing, or avoiding something in front of them. These principles also apply to bicycle drivers. Bicycle lanes however often encourages users - both cyclists and motorists to not obey the law. Many bicyclists remain in bike lanes near places where driveways and right turns are permitted and pass turning traffic on the right. Motorists are supposed to actually move into bike lane (after yielding of course to those already in that lane) and perform their right turn from there, unless their operating a vehicle -such as a large truck- that’s not physically capable pf making that turn.

Lastly on the topic of large vehicles, collisions between cars and these large vehicles occur on a regular basis. And who wins those?

The roads were actually created for automobiles for the expressed purpose of transporting military assets across the country. Google the “freeway act”.

Can you be more specific as to why you believe sharrows and routes where motorists and bicyclists share the road (which is the vast majority of roads, BTW) don’t work?

Class II Bikeways can be useful and safe but they can also be the sheer opposite. Bicyclists get in crashes from motorists turning across bike lanes while making left or right turns or pulling into the roadway for example. Many bike lanes are installed in the “door zone” which is a hazard for bicyclists riding in the door’s strike zone but also at the edge. Bicycle lanes also subject cyclists to close passes and often contain debris or nasty gutter lips.

The old scheme of motorists, epecially car drivers ---- is "to drive" bicyclists into located potholes/cracks, etc., at the perfect timing. Bicyclist typically chose by body profile in some way, and/or profile of bicycle.

That’s coming soon. I believe Airbus is one company that is in the final stages of the drone taxi.

Doorings are horrible crashes but fortunately for cyclists, they are 100 percent preventable. There’s no need to roll any dice. The best course for a person bicycling is to ride well out of the door zone. Unfortunately many bike lanes exist that are painted in this area essentially instructing cyclists to ride in this hazardous area.

That right lane is for bikes as well as buses.

I know that; but to anyone very familiar with the society of San Diego County --- the environment here has its attitude problems based on (lack of) respect. The smaller-sized is the loser. Like the pussy-game in school, the same to vehicles on the road --- unless being an attractive female.

Ponzi, please note that not every person who rides a bicycle supports separated bikeway projects especially ones like the proposed one on 30th street in North Park. Part of the controversy Mr. Blakespear mentioned was about so-called “vehicular cyclists” who generally ride their bicycles as drivers of vehicles which was the default mode of operation since the late 1800s. Later bike lanes and bike paths were introduced mostly to shove bicyclists off the roads and nowdays many bicycle advocates support building them in hopes that they’ll encourage more people to ride. It’s a new group of people who want these facilities, in part because bicycling education (hot to follow the rules and stay safe) is seen as inferior to reworking the transportation network (aka making it a pain in the rear for most people to do their everyday driving trips)

As for your statements about fuel taxes and registration. Neither of those monies grant someone the right to use the public roads. Nor do those taxes and fees remotely pay for the roads. Many, if not most bicyclists own cars too and they purchase goods and services brought by motor vehicles whose operators also paid such fees. Most local roads where bicycle travel is permitted is funded by property taxes, sales taxes, other special use taxes, and bonds. Bicyclists are far from “economic refugees.” In fact continuing to promote unsustainable motor vehicle use places further strain on the transportation system both at a traffic level and fiscally for the governments who own them. Multiple studies have confirmed that our roadway infrastructure is vastly underfunded. The American Society of Civil Engineers constantly studies this as well however efforts to properly fund the roadway system as extremely unpopular as is the removal of the parking spots in North Park.