Critique Of Crummy U.S. Cycling Infrastructure May As Well Be About Regina

Here’s hoping all these points are being considered in the Transportation Master Plan. And that they’ve been incorporated into the Official Community Plan. Because I sure would hate to see hundreds of thousands spent on consultants to put together all these master plans and wind up with more of the same half-assardry on cycling infrastructure. Why, it would make me think we were wasting our money.

Also, note how the narrator looks at the reasons why people cycle on the sidewalk instead of just saying, “Roar!! You shouldn’t do that!!”

Author: Paul Dechene

Paul Dechene is 5'10'' tall and he was born in a place. He's not there now. He's sitting in front of his computer writing his bio for this blog. He has a song stuck in his head. It's "Girl From Ipanema", thanks for asking. You can follow Paul on Twitter at @pauldechene and get live updates during city council meetings and other city events at @PDcityhall.

44 thoughts on “Critique Of Crummy U.S. Cycling Infrastructure May As Well Be About Regina”

  1. I always remember fondly the city’s plan to install a bike lane on 13th, and how a consultant at the open house scoffed when I had the temerity to ask if this was ever “actually going to happen”. “Of course it is,” he spit in my face. “It’s right here on paper.”

    Bike Lane: Never happened.

  2. The film makes some very good points, one of which is the perception of cycling in the US as not being a regular adult workday activity. Here in Regina, and no doubt elsewhere, some cyclists share that perception: disregard of the rules of the road is the strongest indication, and riding on the sidewalk is that indication in spades. Legislation here allows bikes on the sidewalk if they are below a certain wheel diameter, as in children’s bikes. Adults riding on the sidewalk? No, sorry, but their safety as riders doesn’t trump mine as a pedestrian. If they are leery of riding on the road, if they lack the necessary alertness and reflexes to ride in urban conditions, perhaps they shouldn’t be riding at all. They are vehicle operators, and should be held to standards of competence just as car drivers are.

  3. I remember the plan they had to put a bike lane on 15th. We live close enough to it that we received a notice about the plan and were asked our opinion. We were heartily in favour.

    And not just because it would make east-west bike travel convenient for us. There are also lots of kids going to and coming home from Davin School who have to cross 15th and that’s become a very busy street over the past six or seven years. With so few controlled intersections on it and with all the on-street parking — and with so many people parking right up into the corner with impunity — it has become a much less safe street for kids to cross. Getting the parking off that street, even if it’s only during rush hours, would have been a massive improvement.

    But apparently people who park on 15th complained and their concerns trumped everyone else’s and in the end Councillor Clipsham with the support of Mayor Fiacco killed the 15th Ave bike lane.

    Their preferred plan was the 13th Ave bike lane. But, as you note, that didn’t happen either.

    Nice work team!

  4. I ride on the sidewalk all the time because riding on a busy street with no bike lane is suicide.
    I rarely encounter pedestrians (what, build a pedestrian-friendly society?), but when I do, I slow down, go around them, and/or thank them for allowing me by. No one is harmed.

  5. Joe: you’re still defying the law, and what I said above still applies. You are supposed to have a bicycle bell; do you? In all the years I’ve lived here, I’ve heard only one, and it’s a legal requirement.

  6. Barb: Urban planners should also be held to a standard of competence. And our traffic engineers have done a poor job of building streets that are safe — and that feel safe — for all types of vehicle operators.

    And this is largely a legacy of previous generations of traffic engineers. I’m not calling out the current crew who at least seem to express a desire to work with what they’ve been left and cobble together a better cycling environment in the city… at some point in the future.

    Unfortunately, I’m not convinced that they have the political support to pull this off. Too often I’ve watched council point to the shared pathway system as though it’s some kind of foutaise accompli for cycling infrastructure and maybe they’ll then offer up some vague commitments to improve options for active transportation in this master plan or that.

    But as Talbot pointed out, there’s no guarantee that improvements to cycling infrastructure will come to fruition even if they make it into a plan and onto a diorama at some city-sponsored public engagement event.

  7. Sorry, Paul, but you miss the point. Although you may feel that urban planning has been less than stellar, inclusive, or forward-looking, that shortcoming is not a legal infraction: adult cycling on the sidewalk is.

  8. Nope. I got your point and then I moved on.

    Way I see it, you can look at people biking on the sidewalk and say, “Those people are rude, lawbreakers. Shame on them.” and leave it at that. Or you can take a fuller view of the situation and say, “Okay, a significant number of people are willing to suffer the social and potential financial costs that come with breaking this law, why is that?” and once you get an answer you can then ask, “How do we structure our city so that people have incentives to stay off the sidewalk?” or at least, “How do we structure our city so that when cyclists are on the street it doesn’t seem like they are in constant danger of death?”

    North American traffic engineers have already asked questions like that for cars. That’s why we have things like curbs and bollards and traffic calming measures on (too few) residential streets. And with that, they’ve built streets that even very bad drivers can safely maneuver at very high speeds.

    Into this auto-utopia they’ve crafted, they’ve thrown cyclists and then ineptly grafted onto their body of traffic laws some poorly thought out — and even more poorly communicated — cycling rules. And as a result you have a confusing mess where bikes are concerned.

    Meanwhile, in parts of Europe, they’ve thought about how to build appropriate cycling infrastructure — and pedestrian infrastructure, I might add — oh, and public transportation infrastructure too — and they’re reaping the benefits of it. As the video points out, people use cycling as a commuting option every day and they do so safely.

    That said, I don’t kid myself that I’m going to see a Dutch cycling model adopted here in my lifetime. But there are a few things we could do here to instantly improve the situation for cyclists — and, by extension, pedestrians.

    Personally, I’d suggest we ditch this stupid fetish we have for on-street parking and get rid of it on arterials. Those parking lanes could then be used for bike lanes. College would be a good place to start. And 15th. And I was biking on Argyle and Montague not too long ago thinking they didn’t really need on-street parking either.

    Oh, and Albert Street south of 25th. I mean, it’s basically a divided highway there, surrounded by enormous surface parking lots. Why we feel the need to have parking on the street there is beyond me.

  9. I agree with you about restricting on-street parking, especially on arterials, though that would seem to conflict with dedicated bus lanes. Gosh, even parts of south Pembina (in Winnipeg) have restricted parking, and posts marking off the bike lane.

    For the rest, I’m afraid that I must say “pshaw”. Cyclists need to take more responsibility (motorists are expected to know the rules of the road without a full-on media campaign), and to claim, as you do, that it’s everyone’s fault but theirs when they put pedestrians at risk and otherwise behave as though they weren’t vehicular drivers under the law — well, that insults both cyclists’ intelligence and mine.

  10. As a year round cyclist a more dedicated cycling friendly infrastructure would be welcome. I follow all the rules of the road. People always like to point out cyclists who break the rules of the road, but for every cyclist I can point out many more drivers who break the rules as well so that argument is just a waste of time in my opinion. It doesn’t matter what group you are a part of; there will always be ignorant people. My most ironic encounter this year so far is biking south on Smith St. and seeing two of Regina’s finest paroling on their bikes traveling east and blowing through their stop sign.

    There are just some areas of the city that I will drive in my car instead of cycling because they are just too dangerous in my opinion (South Albert, pretty much anything east of the ring road, accept for Assiniboine Ave.)

    I am not aware of any requirement for a bell in the City Bylaws, in Saskatoon you are required to have one but I am unaware of any Bylaw in Regina (Page 47 of Traffic Bylaws – 9900). A bell is mostly ineffective when passing other Devonian Pathway users when they have their earphones in and their music blasting.

    So far the only thing the City has done this year is installing all those signs on every single bridge on the Devonian Pathway requiring cyclists to dismount to travel across the bridge, makes no sense!

  11. The thing is… even though Regina has been “planned” with a car-first mentality, it has a really poor road network that creates bottlenecks all over the place. Then to try to cram bicycles through the same bottlenecks….. yeah, it just wonderful.
    In other cities, there are arteries that aren’t freeways every two kilometres which will get you ALL the way across town, whether you are going east-west or north-south. Regina has Albert Street.

  12. Make all the alleyways bicycle lanes! Make more bicycle gangs! Make more high fives between cyclists and allies (be they motorists or the ped’s)! Make more bikes not war! Make prettier bike helmets! Make more bicycle themed mix tapes! Make more bikey critical masses (ala http://tinyurl.com/ky4rvmf)! Make more bike polo! Etc.

  13. As Regina’s cycling advocacy group, Bike Regina is excited to see this discussion take place! As Saskatchewan has never been a destination for urban planners/planning, more of these discussions need to happen (between individuals, with the City, in the media) so that the City can be reminded of what its (urban) transportation priorities should be: prioritization of the movement of people and goods, and not necessarily vehicles.

    Bike Regina always encourages cyclists and drivers to educate themselves with regards to the traffic laws relevant to them and how to share the road effectively. We don’t condone sidewalk riding and salmoning by any means, but we understand that at times, that is the safest option that some people choose. While this is unfortunate, these incidents can and should be used as indicators of bad (or non-existent) bike infrastructure, which can be addressed through a reconsideration of the design standards on which our city’s streets are built upon.

    We will be working with the City of Regina as community stakeholders as they work to complete the Transportation Master Plan in the coming months. In the meantime, we encourage all interested and engaged cyclists and non-cyclists to sign up for a free membership with Bike Regina (http://bikeregina.org/?page_id=366) and join us on Facebook to continue the discussion (https://www.facebook.com/bikeregina)!

    There is strength in numbers and we look forward to advocating to the city for better bike infrastructure with a healthy, robust, and engaged cycling membership!

  14. I commute by bike (I also follow the rules of the road except a few places in the city, one that will be mentioned here) and on the way home I am funneled through the underpass by Broad and Dewdney. It is definitely not a safe place to take your bike on the road unless I am on my road bike and I can sufficiently keep up with traffic.

    However if Barb believes that we shouldn’t be cycling on sidewalks because it is against the law. Why does the city put up signs on that sidewalk asking cyclists to dismount. Because even the city realizes that the street is not reasonably safe for cyclists there and they assume they are travelling on the sidewalk and ask them to dismount in the narrow confines of the Broad St underpass sidewalk.

    As for the mention of bike polo on here. There is a group of us that plays pretty much every friday. All newcomers are welcome. https://www.facebook.com/pages/RSK-Regina-Bike-Polo/175207639201905

  15. A Cyclist, I stand corrected re: bicycle bells. As to the Devonian Pathway, I don’t walk there, but I do use residential and downtown sidewalks, and that’s where the problem is most acute. And re: car drivers who break the law, surely you aren’t trying to persuade me that 2 wrongs make a right??

  16. Greg: your point about the Broad Street underpass is well taken; it is dangerous. The city does make that assumption, but it also responds to pedestrian complaints, which may also be behind the Devonian Pathway bridge signs that seem to irk A Cyclist so.

  17. Barb: no I am not trying to persuade that two wrongs make a right. I was communicating that these debates always come across as cyclists are rule breaking menaces when there are drivers and pedestrians who are just as bad. It’s just a stupid cycle of people who do not appreciate cyclists hurling insults and people who do not like cars slinging them back. I am not sure how you perceived that cyclists can break rules because motorists do; I did not condone or do I support that avenue of reasoning.

    The Broad St. underpass at Sask Dr. and Dewdney is one of the areas of the city where it is legal to ride on the sidewalk. Here is a handy map that details all the cycling routes in the city including areas where sidewalk cycling is legal:

    http://www.regina.ca/opencms/export/sites/regina.ca/residents/parks/.media/pdf/multi-use_pathway_system_map.pdf

    Do the signs on the Devonian Path irk me, they sure do. The City likes to promote the pathway for cyclists when asked about bike lanes. Making cyclists dismount a walk across bridges, some of which are as wide a a full size motor lane just oozes nanny state to me. The sidewalk at Broad St. had cyclist yield to pedestrian signs which made sense to me. All it takes is some common sense and courtesy, I don’t need a sign for that. That is another matter altogether; Regina seems to have gotten itself in a hurry with no time to chill out and have some common courtesy to other drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists.

  18. Cyclist, no one is exonerating bad car drivers, least of all me, but if cyclists want the public to be more on their side, they have to stop saying “Oh, yeah? So do car drivers!” as they so often do, and as you correctly point out above.

    Perhaps you don’t need signs to remind you of what common sense should, but a significant number of cyclists do. They are the ones holding back the rest.

  19. Don’t have a lot of time so, Barb, I can only respond to one thing… You mentioned “motorists are expected to know the rules of the road without a full-on media campaign”.

    But there have been full-on media campaigns. Long before the rules of the road became something that everyone knew and could teach their kids, they had campaigns to inform people of how things work.

    And, they have incentives to get people to take drivers ed classes. And, you could argue, that street signs are themselves a media campaign to inform people about the rules of the road.

    Even road design gives drivers cues about how they’re supposed to be driving.

    Meanwhile, we have billboard campaigns every time there’s a new rule added to the list, such as the ones around texting and driving.

    So… I stand by my assertion that one of the problems with cycling rules is that they are poorly communicated. I’m not saying that cyclists shouldn’t be expected to know them. But we shouldn’t be surprised if many people have misconceptions about the rules if we don’t go out of our way to make them public.

    I mean, even you were under the misapprehension that bike bells were mandatory…

  20. As Regina’s cycling advocacy group, Bike Regina is excited to see this discussion take place! As Saskatchewan has never been a destination for urban planners/planning, more of these discussions need to happen (between individuals, with the City, in the media) so that the City can be reminded of what its (urban) transportation priorities should be: prioritization of the movement of people and goods, and not necessarily vehicles.

    Bike Regina always encourages cyclists and drivers to educate themselves with regards to the traffic laws relevant to them and how to share the road effectively. We don’t condone sidewalk riding and salmoning by any means, but we understand that at times, that is the safest option that some people choose. While this is unfortunate, these incidents can and should be used as indicators of bad (or non-existent) bike infrastructure, which can be addressed through a reconsideration of the design standards on which our city’s streets are built upon.

    We will be working with the City of Regina as community stakeholders as they work to complete the Transportation Master Plan in the coming months. In the meantime, we encourage all interested and engaged cyclists and non-cyclists to sign up for a free membership with Bike Regina (http://bikeregina.org/?page_id=366) and join us on Facebook to continue the discussion (https://www.facebook.com/bikeregina)!

    There is strength in numbers and we look forward to advocating to the city for better bike infrastructure with a healthy, robust, and engaged cycling membership!

  21. I would say that there are a significant number of the general public that need to reminded of what common sense is, not just a single group. Ignorant people or any group hold the majority back. A debate about better infrastructure in this city is much bigger than cyclists this and drivers that. It is just a matter of time with rising fuel prices that there will more people getting around in this city in other modes of transportation and the City Planners need to do their homework and anticipate this for the future.

    I’m just tired of being lumped in with people that think it’s OK to salmon their way up a street the wrong way or people thinking I have a DUI because I am riding my bike to work (Yea pretty much sums up what some people in Regina think about cyclists).

  22. Right; it’s new-issue week, isn’t it?

    Points well taken and made, sir, and in their light I should acknowledge that cycling is in a developmental stage here. That won’t stop me from objecting to adult riders on the sidewalk and to other cycling infractions, because that too is part of the developmental process.

  23. Cyclist: you get no argument from me on your first sentence; common sense is a lot less common, it seems, than it once was. I also sympathize with your exasperation at being stereotyped by some and subjected to guilt by association by others, but if you’re part of a pioneering movement, this is something that you have to expect. We have a different culture and history of transportation than Europeans, and it will change in different ways. Railing at planners and automobiles will undoubtedly make some folks feel better, or at least righteous, but it won’t contribute to solutions.

  24. I’d be interested to see the statistics on the number of cyclists killed by motorists in road traffic vs. the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists on sidewalks. I have a hunch the former is a more dramatic ratio.

    There’s a number of problems, as I see it, with current bike laws. As a vehicle driving on a road, we are all expected to keep up with the rest of traffic to some reasonable extent, right? In a motorized vehicle, this is easy for anyone, but for a human powered vehicle, it requires some sustained effort. So if a cyclist is tenacious enough to bump shoulders with trucks and SUVs on the road, then that’s where they should be. But what about seniors? Or those of us who have some kind of disability that prevents us from keeping up with motorized traffic? I say those people should be allowed on the sidewalk, as long as they are courteous, and yield to pedestrians. Normally I am able to drive on the street with motorized vehicles, but recently I had a knee injury and I was forced to bike slower than usual. Being on the road would infuriate motorists, so I favored sidewalks for that period. Was I supposed to buy a car for those couple of months?

    There’s very long stretches of Albert street where there is double-width sidewalk on one or both sides of the street, generally unpopulated by pedestrians. Meanwhile, the street itself is perpetually busy and dangerous. In situations like that, isn’t it just common sense to use the basically vacant sidewalk – again, making sure to slow down if there is a pedestrian & giving them a wide berth?

    What I’m advocating for here is more flexibility with bike laws, the (quite obvious) acknowledgement that not every road situation is the same, and also that there’s a huge imbalance between “motorized” and “human powered” vehicles. Simply lumping everything with wheels into the category of “vehicle” is pretty ridiculous. If I’m sitting on my bike seat, but walking with my feet on the ground, am I a pedestrian? And then as soon as my feet go on the pedals, am I’m a vehicle again? Is the distinction really that tenuous?

    Florida (or certain parts of it, at least) has some very sensible laws in place which acknowledge the disparity between motorized and human powered vehicles, and thus offer some flexibility as to where bikes are allowed to be. Road driving is the default, but in situations where this isn’t safe (due to out-dated infrastructure, or other risk factors) sidewalk driving is tolerated, provided it is at a reduced speed and that pedestrians are not at risk. I believe other districts have adopted such laws as well.

    In Regina I believe it’s possible to bike safely on roads about 80% of the time. But with those other 20% I believe there should be some leniency with sidewalk driving, at least until the infrastructure catches up with the realities of urban cycling. For I refuse to believe that me scooting around on my little bike is exactly the same thing as a city bus. I’m not a very extroverted person, so the idea of being a “bike activist” and taking up an entire lane of traffic and getting yelled at by motorists and yelling back at them seems really unappealing. I just want to get to and from work as innocuously as possible, and I think there should be room for people like us.

  25. Barb every time you say, “Yah, but you cyclists should stay off the sidewalks!”, you are making a point that has been said time and time again, is heard by everyone, and is completely moot. Everyone wants to move past that point, yet you keep digging in.

    Riding in Regina is dangerous, and bravo to anyone who dares do it. And hey, absolutely, don’t ride on the sidewalk. I hate seeing it too.

    As a pedestrian, you should be the cyclist’s ally. Stop standing up in the back yelling Oh my god these CYCLISTS they’re ruining everything!! Stop helping the other guys. Put your red herring back in your freezer and relax.

    Talking to planners and to people who drive cars is EXACTLY what we should be doing. If you want to call it railing, go ahead. And I’ll continue to hold my breath every time the media reports a vehicle/cyclist collision while I hope it’s not one of my friends.

  26. Collette: The point is hardly moot (recheck the definition, and while you’re at it, look up “red herring”) because anyone riding a bike above a certain wheel diameter on the sidewalk is, at this time, breaking the law. I’d be glad to see us all move past that sticking point, but I and other pedestrians are only half the equation.

    In your 3rd paragraph, you accuse me of something I haven’t done: blaming cyclists for everything, and “helping the other guys”. This illustrates perfectly the attitude among cyclists that doesn’t help their cause, so thank you for cooperating so nicely in making my point.

    I am the cyclist’s ally. Each time I see a cyclist walking his/her bike through the Farmers Market, I thank him/her, and each time I see someone trying to ride through same, I politely request that (s)he walk it. I do not put a stick through the spokes of a cyclist who whooshes past me from behind without warning. (I do not, however, step aside for a cyclist approaching on the sidewalk from the front, as that would be aiding and abetting an infraction, and relinquishing my proper place.) I’m as positive as I can be, but I’m sure not going to whitewash folks who don’t deserve it.

  27. I am not going to fall for Barb’s trolling.

    I am not going to fall for Barb’s trolling.

    I am not going to fall for Barb’s trolling.

  28. Some of the commentors on this blog, when they do poorly in debate, always accuse the opponent of being a troll. That way, they don’t have to admit that they didn’t have a leg to stand on, or that they brought a knife to a gunfight.

  29. You know, I understand what the current laws are and everything, but I’ve never really understood the big deal about having a cyclist on a sidewalk. There have been many times when I’ve been a pedestrian and a cyclist has gone past me on the sidewalk, and it’s always been a thoroughly unremarkable event each time. You know why? Because I understand that I live in a city with other people, and that there’s people around me, and that I shouldn’t be alarmed when things happen in my immediate vicinity. I have never once been in any close calls, nor have I ever feared for my personal safety on a sidewalk. However, I do think that having laws against riding on the sidewalk may compel most cyclists to act on their best behavior, since in theory they are not supposed to be there. This is perhaps the only benefit the law provides. But I would hate to see any fines enforced for this law since, in the absence of bike lanes, I would hate to have to bike through rush-hour traffic. It’s terrifying for me to even watch as a pedestrian.

    In general I applaud anyone who rides a bike, no matter where they choose to do it, since then there is one less polluting car on the road. But it seems as though there is absolutely no encouragement for people to cycle, since it’s a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation. If you ride on the road, you take your life into your hands and are subjected to verbal abuse from motorists (I’ve even seen drivers swerve to intentionally scare cyclists, as if they’re teaching them a lesson, one assumes.) However, if you ride on the sidewalk, you are now breaking the law. So where are they to go?

  30. “in theory” — no theory about it. The law is what it is, and if people choose to flout it, they should pay the consequences. A lot of cyclists seem to do just fine on the streets. For those who can’t, well, there’s the bus.

  31. See, I had thought that Barb, as a pedestrian, would be an ally to the cyclists. But by her “For those who can’t, well, there’s the bus” comment, I see that she is not an ally at all.

    That moots my red herring comment earlier, which was based upon the idea that she should be adding a positive voice to the conversation, rather than echoing the opponents of cyclists who like to point out infractions caused by cyclists in an attempt to divert attention from the issue at hand: that cyclists need better infrastructure.

  32. There are some people who see the word “law” and just throw their hands up and say “well, that’s as far as I need to think!” Case closed, end of story. Then there are others who can fathom a reality in which some laws might not be entirely just and/or fair. For example, there are people who are currently trying to change marijuana laws. There are people trying to change marriage laws. There are people trying to change all kinds of antiquated laws. Why do they even bother? Why don’t they just see the word “law” and just throw in the towel and call it a day? (Not to equate those greater social injustices with cycling regulations, mind you, but sometimes you have to exaggerate a bit for a point to be clear.)

    Furthermore, a previous commenter (Amber) mentioned that some American states have decriminalized sidewalk driving. Have those places descended into total chaos, one wonders? Are the sidewalks flowing with rivers of pedestrian blood? probably not.

    Collette is right – improved infrastructure is what’s needed, not inflexible, insensitive opinions about right and wrong.

  33. If the answer to “I don’t feel safe biking on the road” is always “well you can’t ride on the sidewalk, so don’t ride your bike”, then the answer to “hey we need better cycling infrastructure” will always be “but there’s no demand for it: clearly people don’t want to ride bikes – I never see any cyclists.”
    Meanwhile, some communities not named Regina are building wider sidewalks, paved with ashphalt, and branding them “multi-purpose pathways” intended for pedestrians AND cyclists.
    But, whoa, that’s just crazy talk.

  34. Poor arguments aren’t helped by temper tantrums and false ascription of motives, not to mention name-calling.

    Unless and until the law regarding street-bicycle riding on the sidewalk (which apparently Collette hates to see, and advises against) changes, I will continue to defend my and other pedestrians’ rights to walk that pavement safely. The law is there to protect us and our rights. It may be changed, or not, but if it is, it will be with a raft of conditions (e.g. mandatory use of warning devices, renewed emphasis on walking bikes across pedestrian crosswalks, fines for non-compliance, etc.) for the protection of those who have first claim on the sidewalk: pedestrians. How “insensitive” is it to require others to respect your rights? I think some cyclists are employing a double standard here.

    Regarding the bus, I’ve observed that cyclists make a lot of use of the bike racks, which is one other way of avoiding heavy and dangerous traffic, as well as a support of public transit. I assume that everyone but die-hard anti-car ideologues would be in favour of public transit.

    I’d like to think that cyclists would be allies of pedestrians. Working for improved infrastructure, with an emphasis on getting onto the streets where vehicular traffic belongs, and not employing the language of car-hatred (which is politically unwise here), would demonstrate that cyclists are on the side of safety for everyone, not just themselves.

  35. I agree with Paul.
    Get rid of arterial road “bus lane” parking.
    The wheel diameter clause should be removed,& replaced by an age limit,14 exceptions for sure for those who are physically challenged, Adult tricycles etc.
    The RPD doesn’t seem to ticket peeps riding against the traffic… So Stupid.

  36. Good ideas, Ron. One question, though: I’ve seen a number of adult trikes whose riders appear to have no problem negotiating the streets. Might they not object to being lumped in with kids?
    Yes: riding against the traffic is another abiding fault of a lot of cyclists, just as there are pedestrians who walk against the traffic in areas where there are no sidewalks (road shoulders, etc.)

  37. Barb may well be a friend to cyclists, but she can’t let that come before her desire to be a contrarian and scold. Ah well.

  38. Amy may well be a legitimate commentor, but her decision to wait to comment until the post page turns, and then to utilize the usual labels employed by those who didn’t make the debate team in high school makes one wonder about all sorts of things. Ah, well.

Comments are closed.