The case for Bikeability in Houston

[Robert W. Boyd]

Riding on sidewalks isn't safe for pedestrians and I don't think gives huge advantages to bikers. I'm not aware of anywhere where that is legal, for good reason.

As far as I know, riding on sidewalks is completely legal except in "business districts".

Section 45-302

No person shall ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk in the City of Houston within a business district or where prohibited by sign. A business district is defined as "the territory contiguous to and including a roadway when, within 600 feet along such roadway, there are buildings in use for business or industrial purpose which occupy 300 feet collectively on both sides of the roadway".

[house567]

I attended my first Houston Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting last Tuesday evening at City Hall. I found out about it through the Bike Houston website.

It is open to the public. There were representatives from: City of Houston - Dan Raine, Metro - Connie Roebuck, H-GAC - Gina Mitteco, Harris County - Connie Clark and Houston Parks & Recreation. The meeting was chaired by David Dick, a long time Bike Houston veteran. I was fortunate to meet these advocates and others who have passionately been pleading the case for all cyclists for 20+ years. I would encourage you to visit Bike Houston on Facebook.

and yes...they all agree that the new Richard Wainerdi Bridge crossing Braes Bayou in the medical center is full of bike paths to NOWHERE. Dan Raine was suppose to meet with the upper echeon of Public Works on Wednesday to resolve conflicts. I hope he can soon report funding for completing the sidewalks, bike trails, bike lanes, and bike paths and connectivity around the Braes Bayou-Medical Center-Hermann Park area since most of my miles happen there.

Please come get involved. Push City Council to adopt a "Complete Streets" ordinance and cycle safely.

[house567]

I rode to City Hall today from Med Center to pick up my "Tour de Houston" ride packet for this Sunday's ride. I took Hermann Park, Caroline, La Branch, followed the "BIKE signs" mostly. It kept me away from big traffic movers like San Jacinto and Fannin. Got to Annise's new digs but couldn't find a bike rack. I used a bench. Maybe someday.

[bachanon]

hopefully christof spieler, now appointed to metro, will be conscious of these issues.

[Subdude]

I attended my first Houston Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting last Tuesday evening at City Hall. I found out about it through the Bike Houston website.

It is open to the public. There were representatives from: City of Houston - Dan Raine, Metro - Connie Roebuck, H-GAC - Gina Mitteco, Harris County - Connie Clark and Houston Parks & Recreation. The meeting was chaired by David Dick, a long time Bike Houston veteran. I was fortunate to meet these advocates and others who have passionately been pleading the case for all cyclists for 20+ years. I would encourage you to visit Bike Houston on Facebook.

and yes...they all agree that the new Richard Wainerdi Bridge crossing Braes Bayou in the medical center is full of bike paths to NOWHERE. Dan Raine was suppose to meet with the upper echeon of Public Works on Wednesday to resolve conflicts. I hope he can soon report funding for completing the sidewalks, bike trails, bike lanes, and bike paths and connectivity around the Braes Bayou-Medical Center-Hermann Park area since most of my miles happen there.

Please come get involved. Push City Council to adopt a "Complete Streets" ordinance and cycle safely.

I looked up "Complete Streets" and found this:

New USDOT Policy Statement Endorses Complete Streets: On to Implementation

By Barbara McCann, on March 16th, 2010 in Federal

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood has issued a new policy statement that calls for full inclusion of pedestrians and bicyclists in transportation projects, with particular attention paid to transit riders and people of all ages and abilities – essentially, a Complete Streets policy. “This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized,” he said in his blog yesterday.

Secretary LaHood made a big splash at last week’s National Bike Summit, but his enthusiastic tabletop speech is no match for yesterday’s new policy statement in scope and potential effect, as transportation agencies across the country begin to follow the USDOT’s lead and adopt Complete Streets policies.

The statement details what agencies large and small can and should do to integrate non-motorized modes into future projects:

* Consider walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes;

* Ensure convenient choices for people of all ages and abilities;

* Go beyond minimum design standards;

* Integrate bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on new, rehabilitated, and limited-access bridges;

* Collect data on walking and biking trips;

* Set a mode share target for walking and bicycling and track them over time;

* Maintain sidewalks and shared-use paths the same way roadways are maintained, especially during snowy weather; and

* Improve non-motorized facilities during maintenance projects.

We are thrilled and gratified.

This move will make our job easier, as we still have a long way to go toward full policy adoption: fewer than half the states have policies, Complete Streets has not yet become federal law, and only a small fraction of all cities and towns have policies.

National Complete Streets Coalition

I like the idea of not automatically giving cars priority on streets.

[Arivechi]

Thank you for a fantastic post and a fantastic thread!! I was riding regularly, but I ran over a pothole one day and didn't recover in time for a car to come and hit my bike (and grazed my hip as well). That happened a month ago, and I've been too scared to touch my bike ever since. The motorist was driving and texting of course, and barely noticed what happened until they looked up and saw that I was writing down their license plate. THEN they pulled a decisive U-turn to come and see if I was okay. Gotta love irresponsible drivers.

Your story has inspired me to put a pen and folded up paper in my seat bag. Hoping to not need to use them for writing down plate numbers.

Hope you get back on the bike soon!

[Fringe]

I like the idea of not automatically giving cars priority on streets.

Not a very good idea. At least not on busy streets. Saw an idiot riding his bike north on Kirby between Braeswood and University the other day,  taking up the right lane and causing all kinds of traffic problems as people tried to get around him. There were plenty of sidewalks and side streets he could had used, at least to give the stacked up traffic a chance to get past him (it was at a peak traffic time) but the a-hole could care less. He wouldn't even pull over closer to the curb.  To me this is the equivalent to driving 40 in the left lane of a freeway. I felt like running him off the road myself and I'm a biking fanatic.  You have to use common sense and good judgment when biking along with respecting other motorist.  

[Hanuman]

A sure sign of a "real" bike store is an on-premises dog.

Interesting article about what is wrong with bike lanes. In short, they are frequently poorly engineered and can lend a false sense of safety.

Bicycle Blunders and Smarter Solutions

It also makes the point that bike parking - a critical component of bikeability in my book - is often inadequate or missing altogether. My bike parking pet peeve is the older racks that are too low to allow you to lock the frame of the bike to them.

Thank you Sub! I had quit posting on this thread, as no one honored dogs here! I ride with my dog right along side of me. He's very well trained, and takes voice commands like he's human. I rescued him from a freeway accident, where no one stopped to help him. I took him to the vet, and got him back on his feet again - well, at least three of them. One ( left, front ) had to be amputated, as it was mangled pretty badly. He lost one eye, several teeth, and his ears are torn up a little. His coat is a tad mangey looking from the road rash. Yes, I named him "Lucky". He doesn't mind at all, and is quite an athlete, able to keep up with my bike easily. Some people cringe when they see him, but they're just being insensitive. Once they get to know him they really like him. He will bite you, if you try to touch him while he's eating, or pick him up, but show me a dog that won't! He's a big dog anyway, so picking him up is a chore. He probably weighs @ 120 lbs., and appears to be a mix of German Shepherd, and Rottweiler. He hardly ever attacks anyone, mostly snaps at them - so most people really enjoy it when I ride up with him. So, Look for us on the road, and come say, "Hi"!

[Subdude]

Not a very good idea. At least not on busy streets. Saw an idiot riding his bike north on Kirby between Braeswood and University the other day,  taking up the right lane and causing all kinds of traffic problems as people tried to get around him. There were plenty of sidewalks and side streets he could had used, at least to give the stacked up traffic a chance to get past him (it was at a peak traffic time) but the a-hole could care less. He wouldn't even pull over closer to the curb.  To me this is the equivalent to driving 40 in the left lane of a freeway. I felt like running him off the road myself and I'm a biking fanatic.  You have to use common sense and good judgment when biking along with respecting other motorist.  

What if he was trying to get somewhere on Kirby? Then a side street wouldn't have been an option. Or perhaps he was in a hurry and Kirby was just the most direct route.

The point is, bicyclists have a right to use the road. It's not their responsibility to worry about the effects on car traffic.

[TheNiche]

The point is, bicyclists have a right to use the road. It's not their responsibility to worry about the effects on car traffic.

What is has little bearing on what should be.

[kylejack]

Riding to the right of the lane on a fast-moving street is dangerous. Some car comes along that thinks they can squeak by when they can't and kills a cyclist. Taking the lane forces people to change lanes if they want to pass. It sounds like the cyclist was trying to stay safe. Fringe, sidewalks don't generally work. They're busted up or there's pedestrians on them or they just disappear. Woops where is that sidewalk running off to?? I'm trying to ride down Kirby between Braeswood and University!

[samagon]

Riding to the right of the lane on a fast-moving street is dangerous. Some car comes along that thinks they can squeak by when they can't and kills a cyclist. Taking the lane forces people to change lanes if they want to pass. It sounds like the cyclist was trying to stay safe.

^^ This.

It isn't convenient for the motorists, but then death isn't convenient for anyone involved.

[Subdude]

Riding to the right of the lane on a fast-moving street is dangerous. Some car comes along that thinks they can squeak by when they can't and kills a cyclist. Taking the lane forces people to change lanes if they want to pass. It sounds like the cyclist was trying to stay safe. Fringe, sidewalks don't generally work. They're busted up or there's pedestrians on them or they just disappear. Woops where is that sidewalk running off to?? I'm trying to ride down Kirby between Braeswood and University!

That's quite true. I tend to instinctively be a bit of a curb-hugger, but after enough close calls with cars that thought they had enough room to pass in the same lane I now make an effort to stay closer to the middle.

It's not that I don't respect other drivers - after all, they have the weight on me - but I have to use the road as well.

[kylejack]

That's quite true. I tend to instinctively be a bit of a curb-hugger, but after enough close calls with cars that thought they had enough room to pass in the same lane I now make an effort to stay closer to the middle.

It's not that I don't respect other drivers - after all, they have the weight on me - but I have to use the road as well.

Its a best-discretion thing. There are plenty of streets where 1) the lane is wide enough to fit a car and a bike 2) the traffic is slow enough or sparse enough not to worry about it or 3) there's a big tidy shoulder to ride on, but absent those three things I am going to take the lane. Kirby is a perfect example of a street where you have to do this.

[TheNiche]

...but I have to use the road as well.

Do you?

The "I was born this way" line works well to ensure equal rights for women, minorities, and gays...but cyclists? Cycling on roads is a choice; there are alternatives.

[kylejack]

Cyclists on roads don't have a lot of rights. Just last year a couple on a tandem in the San Antonio area were plowed by some idiot who veered off the road and he wasn't even ticketed. The motorist wouldn't even give any money to bury the couple and the little daughter is left orphaned. But we don't need a 3-foot passing rule, says Rick Perry, because there are already sanctions on motorists who drive unsafely (as he vetoes a 3 foot passing bill).

http://www.woai.com/mostpopular/story/Couple-killed-when-truck-slams-into-drags-bicycle/go3yQ221t0iNLcWTSJZ5Bg.cspx

[sunsets]

Do you?

The "I was born this way" line works well to ensure equal rights for women, minorities, and gays...but cyclists? Cycling on roads is a choice; there are alternatives.

Well.... what if our hypothetical cyclist's only means of transport is a bicycle? And let's suppose he was riding on Kirby because it was the fastest way to get somewhere or he was heading to a business on that block. Is he supposed to ride on the sidewalk? Technically illegal in that "business district". Not sure where the previous poster encountered him "between Braeswood and University" but maybe he needed to use the Kirby bridge to get over the bayou? There aren't many options for bayou crossings that don't involve sharing the road or going 3 miles out of your way to use a pedestrian crossing.

Point is, you can't assume someone is just being a jerk if he or she has to cycle on a busy public road. Do you log onto forums to complain about every delivery truck/moving van/tow truck that slows down traffic, too? These are multi-lane, very urban roads. There will be slow moving vehicles using them on occasion. Take a few extra seconds and go around.

[TheNiche]

Well.... what if our hypothetical cyclist's only means of transport is a bicycle? And let's suppose he was riding on Kirby because it was the fastest way to get somewhere or he was heading to a business on that block. Is he supposed to ride on the sidewalk? Technically illegal in that "business district". Not sure where the previous poster encountered him "between Braeswood and University" but maybe he needed to use the Kirby bridge to get over the bayou? There aren't many options for bayou crossings that don't involve sharing the road or going 3 miles out of your way to use a pedestrian crossing.

Point is, you can't assume someone is just being a jerk if he or she has to cycle on a busy public road. Do you log onto forums to complain about every delivery truck/moving van/tow truck that slows down traffic, too? These are multi-lane, very urban roads. There will be slow moving vehicles using them on occasion. Take a few extra seconds and go around.

Then that hypothetical cyclist is hypothetically retarded. They can drive a car, carpool, ride a bus, call a cab, walk, or engage in a combination of those options. Some of these options may take more time, but if the cyclist is so poor that he can't afford bus fare, then his time probably isn't worth very much either...and this is leaving aside the personal danger that cycling as a primary mode of transportation poses and that when he gets hit, injured, and hospitalized, the taxpayers will end up footing his bill.

When it comes down to it, I just think that priority should be given to productive members of society trying to go about their daily business in an efficient and safe manner...and desperately impoverished cyclists (living near Kirby!) don't merit much pity.

[sunsets]

Wow.

So "efficient" means "never having to change lanes to go around a slower road user"?

Hope you never take out an actual "productive" and LAW ABIDING member of society who chooses to ride a bicycle on a busy street because you are too important and busy to be safe. Oh, but that won't matter, since that unfortunate soul will have health insurance and the taxpayers won't have to foot the bill.

[TheNiche]

Wow.

So "efficient" means "never having to change lanes to go around a slower road user"?

Not precisely, no, but that's the gist of it. It also means not having to pay Ben Taub to put your hypothetical cyclist's guts back inside him; it's cheaper to pay his bus fare.

Hope you never take out an actual "productive" and LAW ABIDING member of society who chooses to ride a bicycle on a busy street because you are too important and busy to be safe. Oh, but that won't matter, since that unfortunate soul will have health insurance and the taxpayers won't have to foot the bill.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those angry guys that honks his horn, much less run anyone down. I just don't like the traffic laws as they're set up and would prefer to keep them off of easily-congestable roads for their safety and my convenience.

But if they have the means to travel by safer and more efficient means and still choose the lesser option, then that's recreation. And recreational transportation tends to carry a fair bit of risk. I'm a kayaker, I know all about this and have even had a few close calls. But I don't expect for a port authority to slow down ship traffic because I'm crossing a channel. Smaller more vulnerable craft must yield for larger less vulnerable craft, and the rules make complete sense; IMO, the same should apply to most major thoroughfares except when provided dedicated lanes or crossings. Not all vehicles are created equal, nor should they be.

[kylejack]

Cyclists are more fuel efficient than other modes of transport, so efficiency is all a matter of perspective.

[Fringe]

 Sorry it took me so long to get back to this but: I saw that cyclist ride all the way from Braeswood to University. That's where I lost him. He could have ridden all the way to River Oaks as far as I know. That's quite a stretch to take up one lane in busy traffic going 10 -15 mph. I believe cyclist have rights but should not be rude. Again it's somebody's right to drive 40 in the left lane on the freeway but it's just not good manners.  Cyclist need to realize their limitations, which a big part of is how fast they can travel vs motorized vehicles.  

Just don't drive like your the only person on the road. In a car or a bike. That's all I ask. 

[TheNiche]

Cyclists are more fuel efficient than other modes of transport, so efficiency is all a matter of perspective.

OK, let's go down the fuel-efficiency rabbit hole.

Let's say that an automobile in an urban environment achieves 18 mpg and that gasoline costs $2.75/gal. A two-mile trip would require a $0.306 expenditure of fuel.

Annual food expenditures according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis are about $4,293 per capita, averaging to $11.76 per day. And the average caloric intake according to the American Cancer Society is 2,247 calories per day. So the average calorie costs slightly more than a half cent. But if a cyclist averages about 12 mph, the two-mile trip will take 10 minutes, burning 76 calories according to this source (using a 160 lbs. assumption). The cost of that energy was $0.398.

Ah, but acceleration/deceleration is already built into the mpg estimate for cars; it isn't for cyclists. IF THE CYCLIST FOLLOWS THE RULES OF THE ROAD, stops at red lights and stop signs and refraining from weaving through traffic, he will have to lose and then rebuild his inertia many times. No doubt, that effort would cause his fuel costs to further exceed that of the private automobile. Furthermore, the cyclist typically doesn't have more than one seat on his vehicle, meaning that this analysis blows multi-person cycling trips out of the water.

I'm sure that you're going to rebut by claiming that the exercise is healthy for cyclists and that therefore fuel costs related to food shouldn't matter. And depending on individual circumstances, you may be right. Just understand that I'm going to counter right back that cycling in traffic is a fairly risky enterprise (as comments you've made earlier seem to indicate), and that getting hit by a car or truck is never healthy.

[Gooch]

Cycling on roads is a choice;

So is driving a car. What's the point?

No reason to bike down Kirby though. Excellent alternatives exist, even if the destination was actually ON Kirby. There are bad cyclists that ride bikes. There are more bad drivers in cars. Do we post about every bad driver we see? Nope.

All that said... I spent last week biking around Austin. Even with the SxSW congestion, biking around ATX is very easy. Refreshing to be around drivers that don't freak out around bikes, proper bike lanes, bike racks all over town, etc. The result (or maybe cause?)... tons of bikers getting around instead of taking a car.

[kdog08]

OK, let's go down the fuel-efficiency rabbit hole.

Let's say that an automobile in an urban environment achieves 18 mpg and that gasoline costs $2.75/gal. A two-mile trip would require a $0.306 expenditure of fuel.

Annual food expenditures according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis are about $4,293 per capita, averaging to $11.76 per day. And the average caloric intake according to the American Cancer Society is 2,247 calories per day. So the average calorie costs slightly more than a half cent. But if a cyclist averages about 12 mph, the two-mile trip will take 10 minutes, burning 76 calories according to this source (using a 160 lbs. assumption). The cost of that energy was $0.398.

Ah, but acceleration/deceleration is already built into the mpg estimate for cars; it isn't for cyclists. IF THE CYCLIST FOLLOWS THE RULES OF THE ROAD, stops at red lights and stop signs and refraining from weaving through traffic, he will have to lose and then rebuild his inertia many times. No doubt, that effort would cause his fuel costs to further exceed that of the private automobile. Furthermore, the cyclist typically doesn't have more than one seat on his vehicle, meaning that this analysis blows multi-person cycling trips out of the water.

I'm sure that you're going to rebut by claiming that the exercise is healthy for cyclists and that therefore fuel costs related to food shouldn't matter. And depending on individual circumstances, you may be right. Just understand that I'm going to counter right back that cycling in traffic is a fairly risky enterprise (as comments you've made earlier seem to indicate), and that getting hit by a car or truck is never healthy.

Exercising regularly actually causes the body to use energy more effectively; for example heart rate decreases overall, blood flows more efficiently, muscles burn energy more effectively, and so forth. It would be hard to get a reliable answer based on your calculations. Furthermore, not all calories are created equal. Eating carbs from whole grains and sugars from fruit will allow an individual to get use the energy more efficiently than if you consumed a cheeseburger. So depending on the experiencing of the biker it could vary significantly, just like if you use a prius compared to a F150.

Finally, who cares about your counter argument, this is about efficiency, not safety.

[kylejack]

OK, let's go down the fuel-efficiency rabbit hole.

Let's say that an automobile in an urban environment achieves 18 mpg and that gasoline costs $2.75/gal. A two-mile trip would require a $0.306 expenditure of fuel.

Annual food expenditures according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis are about $4,293 per capita, averaging to $11.76 per day. And the average caloric intake according to the American Cancer Society is 2,247 calories per day. So the average calorie costs slightly more than a half cent. But if a cyclist averages about 12 mph, the two-mile trip will take 10 minutes, burning 76 calories according to this source (using a 160 lbs. assumption). The cost of that energy was $0.398.

Ah, but acceleration/deceleration is already built into the mpg estimate for cars; it isn't for cyclists. IF THE CYCLIST FOLLOWS THE RULES OF THE ROAD, stops at red lights and stop signs and refraining from weaving through traffic, he will have to lose and then rebuild his inertia many times. No doubt, that effort would cause his fuel costs to further exceed that of the private automobile. Furthermore, the cyclist typically doesn't have more than one seat on his vehicle, meaning that this analysis blows multi-person cycling trips out of the water.

I'm sure that you're going to rebut by claiming that the exercise is healthy for cyclists and that therefore fuel costs related to food shouldn't matter. And depending on individual circumstances, you may be right. Just understand that I'm going to counter right back that cycling in traffic is a fairly risky enterprise (as comments you've made earlier seem to indicate), and that getting hit by a car or truck is never healthy.

Note that you switched the discussion from fuel efficiency to cost. They are not the same thing. Here's a hint: fuel efficiency has absolutely nothing to do with money. It has to do with how much distance is traveled per fuel expended. Miles per gallon, for example. The bicycle is the most fuel efficient (miles per kilojoule) transportation available to most people, more fuel efficient than walking or driving. But since you want to discuss cost, let's include the cost of purchase and upkeep for these two forms of transportation, and without doing the math we know that the bicycle wins handily.

[TheNiche]

So is driving a car. What's the point?

No reason to bike down Kirby though. Excellent alternatives exist, even if the destination was actually ON Kirby. There are bad cyclists that ride bikes. There are more bad drivers in cars. Do we post about every bad driver we see? Nope.

The point is that cycling down major thoroughfares and mingling with faster, bigger, less cautious traffic for the sake of a commute is a really poor personal choice for the cyclist to make and that aside from his own safety, he is also inducing congestion by his very presence. It's one thing when a cyclist takes dedicated bike paths, dedicated bike lanes, neighborhood streets, or even major thoroughfares that aren't prone to congestion that have good sight lines, larger lanes, and/or lower speed limits.

I wouldn't dare suggest that cycling on all streets ought to be illegal. But there are many thoroughfares where it just doesn't make sense for anybody involved, and where I think that it ought to be a ticketable offense. And it's not as though this is a notion lacking precedent. Cyclists already can't use freeways and nobody's outraged. By your own admission, cycling Kirby is a dumb idea; and there are plenty of other such streets in town just like it. Unless cycling on all streets is to be viewed as some kind of a human right, I don't see why an idea like this elicits so much of a backlash...especially against someone who likes the idea of expanding dedicated bicycling infrastructure.

Exercising regularly actually causes the body to use energy more effectively; for example heart rate decreases overall, blood flows more efficiently, muscles burn energy more effectively, and so forth. It would be hard to get a reliable answer based on your calculations.

I'm going by a third-party calculation of calorie burning that I didn't develop. It is unclear whether it takes into account the average person or a person that is already fit, so that criticism could work for or against your position. There were quite a few other search results for calorie calculators that probably use slightly different formulas. Feel free to make a comparison of them to develop a reasonable range, if you're interested.

So depending on the experiencing of the biker it could vary significantly, just like if you use a prius compared to a F150.

I put forth a very reasonable example, acknowledged what were assumptions, cited my sources, and applied some straightforward arithmetic. Your results may vary, but I would tend to think that a conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that cycling is more efficient than driving holds muster. And probably, given most peoples' individual circumstances, cycling is less efficient than driving.

Finally, who cares about your counter argument, this is about efficiency, not safety.

I'd argue that being in an accident would be rather inefficient in the grand scheme of things...but hey, I was just anticipating a feeble off-topic comeback. I shouldn't have to be constrained by the assumption that the other person's response had to be logical. And obviously there's good reason for this. See below.

Note that you switched the discussion from fuel efficiency to cost. They are not the same thing. Here's a hint: fuel efficiency has absolutely nothing to do with money. It has to do with how much distance is traveled per fuel expended. Miles per gallon, for example. The bicycle is the most fuel efficient (miles per kilojoule) transportation available to most people, more fuel efficient than walking or driving.

That's not in any way relevant to public policy. Let's try to be practical.

But since you want to discuss cost, let's include the cost of purchase and upkeep for these two forms of transportation, and without doing the math we know that the bicycle wins handily.

If we go by the 2010 IRS mileage rate, it's $0.50 per mile for passenger vehicles. Considering the cost of many bikes and the scant amount of actual honest-to-goodness use that most bikes get...and also that the use of bicycles in dangerous places is not reflected for in insurance premiums (the way smoking is) and yet that accidents and sports injuries still must be paid for by society...yeah, I think they're probably at on par with one another.

[Gooch]

But there are many thoroughfares where it just doesn't make sense for anybody involved, and where I think that it ought to be a ticketable offense.

Thanks for the clarification. But if riders are in the streets, and car drivers don't like it... it's just as valid an option for drivers not to drive to avoid cyclists as it is for the cyclists to avoid the cars. Legally speaking, a car doesn't give someone specialized right to the road. Obviously, practicality is something different.

So how would you write your proposed "ticketable offense" statute? What would your criteria for a thoroughfare where bikes would not be allowed be?

[skwatra]

All that said... I spent last week biking around Austin. Even with the SxSW congestion, biking around ATX is very easy. Refreshing to be around drivers that don't freak out around bikes, proper bike lanes, bike racks all over town, etc. The result (or maybe cause?)... tons of bikers getting around instead of taking a car.

i was in austin as well, and had the same thoughts. bike racks everywhere, bikes and cars sharing the roads. this trip i didn't have my bike because i was with a group, but i do enjoy riding my bike there often.

i also spend 10 days in SF post Ike with nothing to do because my work was closed and all the servers were down. I borrowed my brother's bike, and was pretty intimidated at first riding on those streets. but cars cautiously passed me, and i didn't slow down the flow of traffic. the only problem ever was with buses, which got a little scary a couple times because they pass by at speed with little room.

but it was impossible (and illegal) to ride on the sidewalks with all the peds, and when i learned the streets there was no problem. i spent 4-5 hours a day just riding with traffic, and it was great. no cars had any problems, and i didn't have any problems.

in houston, i mostly ride for fun, or run errands. i ride up Montrose every day towards Allen Pkwy (so I'm on the Bayou after < 1 mile on the road), sometimes at 5pm when its pretty crowded. I almost always take the sidewalk because its mostly empty, if there are peds i either go on the grass or jump on the street temporarily if there are no cars. i would love to ride on the road and not have to deal with peds, dogs, ending sidewalks, curbs, but it just doesn't make sense safety wise here, since i know people here have the mindset that bikes don't belong on the roads. its very unfortunate.

btw, searching online UK and Canada offer tax incentives to bike commuters, and also many companies have POV reimbursement (lower than what it is for cars).

[kylejack]

Why don't these cars just ride on the sidewalks?