The war on cars continues:

Mayor Mike McGinn is pushing a road safety initiative aimed at making Seattle streets safer for everyone - and that includes lowering speed limits in some neighborhoods.

"We need to start think about each other's frustrations, each other's concerns, and how we can help make it easier to get home safely," McGinn says.

As part of the initiative, state lawmakers are being asked to make it easier for cities to drop their speed limits.

McGinn says that goes for everyone who uses the streets - but at the top of his mind are the deaths of three bicyclists in Seattle this summer alone - including Michael Wang, a father of two.

Already this year, there have been a total of 10 cycling-related deaths statewide.

The Cascade Bicycle Club's Craig Benjamin says speed is often the killer, which is why he hopes lawmakers will make it easier to slash speed limits.

"House Bill 1217 is to give cities the freedom to lower the speed limits on non-arterials to 20 mph," Benjamin says.

Cities can reduce speed limits now, but it's a cumbersome and expensive process. Municipalities who currently want to reduce speed limits have to fund costly engineering studies first.

The proposed measure would eliminate that red tape and open up the possiblity of lower speed limits in cities statewide, including Seattle.

"The data on this is really powerful," says McGinn. "A collision between a car and individual at 40 miles per hour, there is about an 80 percent chance of death; 30 mph, 50 percent, 20 mph, 5 percent chance."

Adds Benjamin: "Twenty miles per hour is the magic number. Your chance of dying if hit by a car, you start dropping below 5 percent and your chance of a collision are significantly lower."

Benjamin says he doesn't anticipate every city and every non arterial would be considered for a speed reduction, just the streets that make sense.

"It's really sad that people have to die in order for people to start paying attention, but as a city we have a long way to go," says Benjamin. "We've fallen way behind what other cities are doing in terms of allowing people to ride their bikes safely and allow people to walk and drive safely."

Bike advocates say speed reduction is just one option. They also want more speed bumps, signage and education.
..

Glad I don't live in Seattle but, IMO, I think it's time they prohibited bikes.

20 mph??? Ridiculous!

Nothing against bikes, but if they are going to be given preference then let them be licensed like cars. And if they are to be ridden in the streets, require the riders to be licenced just like motorcycle riders.

Don't even get me started on this.....

Big road trip from Harstine Island is the weekly run into the sprawling metropolis of Shelton, or if you are really getting wild, heading north to Bel Fair.

Seattle is one f'd up city... this proposal will probably kill more bicyclist than it will save just by putting a bigger target on thier back...

If you poll the average bicyclist what they think - I bet more of them would against it than for it

I would rather take my chances in Seattle than either one of those roads

This isn't about children it's about the Cascade Cycle Club and their no car utopian dream where everyone commutes by bike.

I'm ready to start an anti bike campagn and sell little bumper stickers of wrecked bikes we can all add like notches to our bumpers.

Hey, something we agree on!

No Hank, McSchwinn is a card carrying member of the Cascade Bicycle Club. The Mayor has been carrying his personal agenda for bike riders in Seattle ever since he took office. This isn't about the kids this time AM, this is about adults that ride the streets of Downtown Seattle.

IMO Adult Bicycle riders should have to pay for tabs and either have a numbered plate or a visible decal That would take away some of the argument about Bicyclists not paying their share of the road taxes and they can be held accountable, like automobile drivers.

It doesn't look like that fat a$$ McSchwinn as ever been on any exercise equipment much less a bike in his life.

I believe the asshat rides an electric assisted bicycle....that would explain the weight.

Kind of like Moochelle as the spokes person for obesity.

My comment relates directly to the lack of shoulders on the roads between shelton-harstine-belfair-bremerton... you will never see me on anything less than 1450 cc's on those roads.

Having commuted on foot, bike, motorcycle & car from bremerton to seattle for 13 years now I will say without a doubt the quickest commute by far is by two wheels (motorcycle followed by bicycle a close second - except on game days)

Ah don't get me started on subsidized ferries. No offense Hankster.

dont get me started either... If they ferry system went with my proposal there would be no more subsidies...

Fuk the bikes.Make'em ride on the sidewalk @ 5 mph and fight with the ped's and wheel chairs.Stay the fuk off the road as they were built to move vehicle traffic not bike traffic.Moving on.............Good luck,
SZ

Riding bikes on major roads.......insane......period.

A lot of these bicyclists get hit because they don't obey the rules of the road. They don't stop for stop signs, they pass traffic on the right side, they don't use the bike lanes, and down here we have all these lovely round a bouts that they don't use correctly either.

Lug Nut Rule: The conveyance with the most lug nuts wins. Can't understand why some people can't get this simple rule.

Or in boating terms/marine world of navigation, the law of tonnage.

As others said, your f'ing crazy to ride a bike on a street shared with cars that weigh several tons, or more. I see enough $hitty drivers on a daily basis, no chance I would want to be on a bike around those sorts of vehicle operators.

And I see even more gutsy bikers that think they own the road. Listen you little $hit, besides looking like a douche in that lance armstrong wanna be cyclist outfit, you've failed to realize even the smallest little dinky smart car could end your life in a second. Don't think you own the road or are entitled to it. Learn your place and don't fvck around near cars and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If they want to drive on the roads, make em pay taxes that vehicles need to pay.

Another good diesel "smoke out" video I received the other day...

I wonder if any of the cyclists have eaten an apple, a pear, or even a bag of granola. 'Cause those items didn't make it to the market by a bicycle messenger. The stuff they all want recycled, didn't get picked up by another cyclist. The real estate agent didn't get to their house using a bicycle. I'd be willing to bet their tofu didn't walk in on it's own two feet either.

Seattle, where I used to live and used to do business.

What a bunch of asswipes most of you are. Why all the bike hate? It's not like a bike can hurt you while you're safely ensconced in your 3/4 ton pick up.

It's legal to ride a bicycle on roads in WA and most every state. If you don't like the law, work to have it changed since most of you preach law and order routinely. Meanwhile, live within the law.

If you want to license bikes, fine. BFD. What would that change? You'd still bitch every time you felt inconvenienced by the presence of a bicycle.

BTW, I don't necessarily favor reducing speed limits for the purpose of accommodating bikes. The number one cause of auto-bike crashes is motorists failing to yield right of way, usually by making a left turn in front of an oncoming bike. Next is motorists passing bikes and then making a right turn in front of the bike. Next is cyclists failing to yield right of way to motor vehicles. Cars driving 30 instead of 20 is not a leading cause of auto-bike crashes.

Sg

Do you not get that people who pay big taxes in the way of fuel taxes and license fees feel that THEY should have priority over those who pay nothing to access the same roadway?

It doesn't seem like a complicated concept to grasp.

Only a f'n asswipe feels like they are entitled to equal road space on roads they paid nothing to build or maintain.

Just watched 2 Lance Armstrong wanna bes blow right through a red light this morning after passing all the stopped cars on the right side.

Seems to me the cyclists want their cake and to eat it too. They want more protection from motor vehicles but most of them do not want to be subject to the same rules and laws that motor vehicles are supposed to observe.

Dan,

License fees pay little to nothing to build and maintain roads. Fuel taxes pay a significant share, but well short of the total. I put more miles by far per year on my car than on my bike, so I'm paying all the usual license, fuel, and other assorted taxes and fees as any citizen. To say I pay nothing to use the roads that I ride my bike on is a lot shorter than short-sighted. Further, bikes take up far less space on roads and cause unmeasurable wear, unlike motor vehicles.

Using a fee based schedule, does a gas guzzling classic car from the 60s have a higher priority of use over a modern fuel efficient car because its owner pays more gas taxes? Interesting notion, but likely a non-starter in most debates.

I drive my car about 15,000 miles a year and have no problems sharing the road with bikes, pedestrians, and occasional horseback riders. I don't like bike riders who blow through stop lights (and are setting themselves up for a date with the law of natural and logical conserquenses) and stop signs any more than I like car drivers who do the same. I attribute the bike hate to perceptions of inconvenience, but wasn't sure so decided to ask.

If feelings of entitlement makes one an asswipe, then we agree that the nation has an overabundance of asswipes.

Sg

DBA,

I pretty much agree with you. Cyclists preach the rules of the road (kind of like motorists) and then don't comply with them. The Capital Bicycle Club that I used to ride with requires following the rules of the road on club rides, yet those very riders (because many are in race training) routinely blow through traffic lights. I learned why they do it, but that doesn't make it smart, let alone legal.

Sg

Red Herring.

Bike riders are required to pay nothing. Auto drivers ARE required to pay for road contruction and maintenance. Whether that amount actually pays for the entire building and maintenance of roads is irrelevant.

The point is that cars pay to be on the roads, and bikes do not. In this case, should bikes take priority over cars, and why?

I live and work in Seattle and spend many days per year driving around the city. My commute both to and from work as been effected by the removal of traffic lanes which where turned into bike lanes. One of the lanes which was removed is on a large hill. I can't say I've ever seen someone riding a bike up that hill in over 15 years. I don't understand how they justify eliminating traffic lanes.

As far as bike riders, most follow the rules but there are some real asswipes as well. Especially the couriers downtown. They run red lights, stop signs, ride in between traffic etc. One got cute a few years ago and decided he needed to pass my boss on the left side in the on coming traffic lane. My boss took a left turn which resulted the biker eating t-bone metal.

I'll be voting no for McGinn's transportation plan.

Been posted before, but still makes me laugh. It reminds me a lot of Olympia.

You know this law applies to non-arterial roads, most of which, I assume have a 25mph limit anyhow. Most here seem to assume that this would apply to all streets. If you were to restrict something like 4th ave downtown to 20 that would be rediculous. Or Olive , or third or 1st ... Put it this way, if a bus uses it , it should not be reduced to 20mph.

If they do this, they should enforce the speed limit strictly on those riding bikes.

"They want more protection from motor vehicles"

No, ultimately they want cars off the roads period and they want car drivers to pay for that to happen. Under this mayor they've become a strong political lobby. BikePAC.

"You see, there is a struggle going on. A struggle for the vision of what will make our city and region great. You know you can count on Cascade to stand strong for a better future. On the Missing Link. On Transportation 2040. On the tunnel. In the legislature. In our classes. In our communities.

And right here on our city streets.

This is what Proposition 1 is about. The future. For some reason, our opposition is satisfied with a future that maintains the status quo where our buses are slow and unreliable, where it’s not always safe to cross the street or for our kids to walk or bike to school, and where our roads our littered with potholes.

We see a different future, a vision we believe you share. You and I are making incremental changes that will add up to a sustainable future. And people want to stop us from making that progress toward that vision.

Stand strong with us. Don’t let these bullies knock you down. The next incremental change we need to make is to approve Proposition 1 in the next election. So please, get up to speed, volunteer to help, support the campaign, tell your friends and let’s make progress happen."

"What happens if the $80 VLF isn’t approved by Seattle City Council? Well, the Bicycle Master Plan is a $240 million plan that is 70% underfunded. We can keep limping along, but can’t we do better? More people are using bikes to get around the city. The VLF would give a boost to bike projects and support the growing user demand. Sharrows are cheap and were a good start, but as one friend put it: “I’m sharrowed out.” It’s time to update the Bicycle Master Plan and get on with some truly inspiring projects. Would you like to see downtown and waterfront cyclectracks, neighborhood greenways, bike traffic signals and safer bridge crossings?"

And here's their flawed logic:

"Prop. 1 will invest $100 million to make transit in Seattle faster and more reliable. 95% of all Seattle residents and 96% of all the jobs in the city are within an easy walk or bike ride to the high priority transit corridors that Prop. 1 will invest in. Transit riders across the whole city will see benefits."

"Prop. 1 dramatically expands family-friendly bicycle infrastructure."

I question their math but notice they don't account for those outside of the city limits. Those areas and people don't fit into their utopian dream.

Roads are for motorized vehicles. It is the reason they were built. And whether a bicyclist also drives a car or not, therefore partially contributing to a roads funding base, doesn't matter. They still contribute squat for their bike to take up space on the blacktop. Pay your share, or move out of the way.

Truck pay addtional fees/taxes because they do additonal damage. Both trucks and cars pay fuel taxes according to how often they are on the road.

Joggers and walkers don't take up space on the road surface.

It's not like the sledder, db, bankie debate at all. One of those groups isn't riding on the coat tails of the others.

You're just looking for an argument, aren't you?

So you ARE looking for an argument, since nothing you just said is relevant to the issue being discussed.

I am also a safe driver. One that believes you need to buy your way on to our expensive-to-build-and-maintain road system before you demand changes to accomodate you.

Point out the lack of logic.

"They're also not responsible for miles long traffic jams. "

Not true. That's exactly what "they" are responsible for. "they" being the BikePAC. "they" want to slow traffic down to the point that it's useless to drive. "They" and Mayor McSchwinn are reducing four lane roads to two lanes and two bike lanes. They are now going after speed limits. Through Prop 1 they want to add another tax on cars to pay for their utopian ideas. They have been waging a war on cars for some time and more and more auto drivers are fighting back. BTW, I highly doubt it makes sense to commute by bike for more than 1% of employees in the downtown core.

I got hit by a bike downtown a couple of years ago. I was going straight through a light which was legal when out of no where a biker slams into my passenger side. She's very lucky she didn't go under the wheel. I think she assumed I was turning left. My truck wasn't marked so after a few accusations from her and my "well let's call the poilce then" we went our seperate ways. Accidents are just that. Somebody made a mistake. But on roads and when it's a car versus bike an accident can easily mean death. Of course we all should be wary but in my mind the onus is much more on the biker. After all he's the one who's going to die.

Bikes may not cause maintenance issues, but bikers using the roads do. Just a few examples....

Those bike lane stripes have to be maintained and there is a cost associated with installing or repainting them.

Storm drains covers needed to be retrofitted so bike tires wouldn't slid into them resulting in a rider taking a header and suing the city.

I'm more than willing to pay my way for using my bike on public roads. How much would that be to cause less traffic congestion and pollution?

BTW, if logic has any bearing, roads need repaving about:

every 10 years due to regular heavy semi truck traffic;

and every 100 years due to normal auto traffic;

and the forces of weather over time will wear out a road centuries before bicycle traffic will.

So if bikes pay, how many of you haters will stop yer bitchin'?

Sg

Well then let's reduce all state highway speed to 35 mph and dedicate two lanes for bikes. From now on the minority user makes the majority decision. You do see how silly that is don't you?

I think you know the answer to this. lol

Ranty's too busy sitting on her butt and smoking ciggs all day long.

Do something stupid on a bike......or not.....but end up getting whacked by a car......you fkn lose. Lose! Big Time Lose!

And it doesn't matter one iota who was right when they're patting you in the face with a shovel.

Here's a little something to think about bikers......anyone who tailgates (or follows close enough to not allow a clear view of the sholder ahead) and follows a truck with a canopy, camper, tall load, or a van without windows, etc. CANNOT SEE a bicycle who is riding along a narrow road. So the biker can be as consciencious as possible (other than being stupid enough to think the road is his/hers) and get nailed easily.

So just do it.

Struck a nerve?

Ranty rides her bike to the Rez and picks up a carton of smokes.

Since getting vehicles off the roads seems to be the goal of many, I guess I'll need to change my commuting habits.
When one of my clients needs help placing a large order, I'll just tell them I'll be over to their office as fast as you can. That of course will depend on the train and bus schedules or how fast I can pedal.

You may not like it; you may not agree with it, but you couldn't be more wrong. Now, what's your next move?

Well, my dislike of bikes comes from living on a rural two lane with no shoulders, that some F'n jackwagon schedules a major ride on every weekend of the summer. . .. . . .The road is marked 35mph and the bikes ride at 10-15mph and slower as they work their way up the hills, sometimes 3 wide and 6 deep.

Most seem to have no consideration for others that they are backing up in traffic behind them and won't pull off to let the dozen or so cars pass, because it is "to dangerous" to pull off the road at any of the gravel side roads that intersect. . ..

Glad I don't have to deal with them in the city very often. . .. . . .



Disclaimer : I have never seen Salmo g on my road, so I can not in good conscience lump him in with these nitwits .. . . even though he does drive a subaru and ride a bike. . . .. oh and he fly fishes too. . .good thing I have met him and know he doesn't fit the "mold". . ..

+1 !

My bitch with bikers is very similar.
I live in the mountains, there is a narrow, two lane, winding road that leads to a very popular lake on the road past my home.
This road has become a very popular ride for the Lance Armstrong wannabes.
There is NO shoulder whatsoever in many stretches of this road.
We have the daily schools buses to deal with, heavy boat traffic on the weekends with big tractor rigs hauling grapes in the fall.
These vehicles take up every square inch of roadway, there is absolutely no room for a bus, my truck AND a biker that I come upon in a blind turn.
I try to be cautious, I don't want the complications that would result from hitting one of these recreational risk takers, but damn they are arrogant and I sure ain't going head on with a bus..
Often there is a huge string of traffic backed up behind the biker trying to make it up a grade because there is zero shoulder on the road and we must drive the same "speed" as the spandex sporting slowpoke.

Gee, I wonder how they were paid for?

Oh wait, that's the entire point...

Whatever happened to "delay of five vehicles illegal"?

I don't think AM and Salmo are figuring in the fact that if you deliberately cause jams and slow downs you are also jamming up the bus system. <1% of the population commutes by bike and that's not going to change much no matter how miserable you want to make it for everyone else.

Why do these earthers wear so loud spandex print shirts? Talk about ghey.

"You mean the busses with BIKE RACKS on them? I don't see "CAR RACKS" on the front, do you? The bus system works WITH bike riders. Passenger vehicles don't. In fact, your car is in the busses way far more often than a bike."

So when you decrease a road from four lanes to two you are deliberately slowing down buses which include the one or two bike riders on the bus. You seem to be proving my point.

"It still is and the signs are there warning people on hundreds of roads in the state."

Yup but I haven't seen it enforced in years. It used to be on highway 101 you stood a good chance of being ticketed. Same with "keep right except to pass".

...and why exactly were those roads built?

Lots of different taxes I pay help fund the Defense Department, but that doesn't mean I'm entitled to play with a cruise missile, now does it?

A road that is built for bicycles is called a 'bike path'.

The fact that you think converting road lanes to bicycle lanes will help ease traffic congestion pretty much covers your warped logic on the subject.

Next?

Seems to work for bike riders.

"It's a cheaper solution to demand exceeding capacity and it's what transportation planners are being directed to do."

Reducing capacity is not a solution to demand and yes it's what they are being directed to do because Seattle has a mayor who thinks the 1/10 of one percenters BikePac is somehow relevant. Once ths one term bozo is gone we'll see more transportation dollars being wasted to undue his mess.

I advocate that all roads within a 30 mile radius of AM be reduced to two lanes and have a set speed limit of 20 MPH. I would also like it well known that said roads were changed because of AM. I'm sure your neighbors will all want to congradulate you on this benefit you've provided them.

I was behind a CT bus one day when a douchebag with a bike was waiting for the bus, he loaded his bike on the bike rack and eventually made his way onto the bus. 1 phvckin straight block (no hills) later the same douchebag gets off the bus, takes his bike off the rack and rides away.

He went 1 phvcking block on that bus...too lazy or stupid to ride that 1 block on his bike....

I actually called the sheriff on that very subject, he said "The law states they have to pull over when it is SAFE to do so, and there is no safe place on that road to pull off on a road bike, therefore, there is nothing we can do. . . . "

Seems kinda lame to me and it pisses me off that the people in charge of orginzing these rides continue to create dangerous situations for everyone .. . . . especially when the biggest loser will be the biker. . .

As worthless as most of your posts are, this one is slightly different. I have lots of bike jerseys that I wear, but some are strategic selections. Mainly I want to be seen to reduce the chance of being hit. My favorite to wear when riding in red-neck mulletville where every pickup has a rear window gun rack is my stars and stripes US flag jersey. I'm no more patriotic than the next guy, but this jersey seems to put me in good stead with the mullet guy and get a thumbs up instead of him tossing his giant-size Mountain Dew container at the cyclists he passes along the road.

It still seems that the main resentment toward bikes in this thread is that motorists see themselves as being inconvenienced by the presence of bikes on the road. Bikes are required to follow the rules of the road, but many of them don't, just as motorists are required to follow the rules of the road, and many of them don't either. The easiest option is to adopt a share the road attitude because the road transportation system is going to get worse and not better. The stuff Aunty is describing about transportation planning is correct. Transportation engineers have long known that we cannot build our way out of highway congestion, and it will get worse. If you cannot or will not change your attitude about driving, your frustration will increase, and you can count on that. The human population of WA increases by about 50,000 people per year and isn't going to slow down any during the next several decades. Just understand that each and every one of them has the same expectations of a place on the road for themselves that you do. If you're a smart person, you can figure out that isn't going to work.

BTW, when I'm riding I don't wait until there's 5 of you behind me before I pull over to let the cars by. And I have very few problems with motorists when I'm riding except for the very occasional asshole, which is better than when I'm driving.

Sg

I have no issues with cyclists. My brother and brother-in-law are both competitive road cyclists. Heck, I experimented a few times in college, at riding bikes that is.

They just laugh at McSchwinn and his antics.

There are boneheads in all groups, like the cyclists on Orcas Island I almost really ran into one day. I lived near Olga at the time and had made it through Moran State Park. A bit past there the road opens up a bit, so I increased my speed accordingly. I come around the corner and here were 40+ cyclists having lunch IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. Nice.

So how long did you debate which pedal to mash down. . . . .??

"It still seems that the main resentment toward bikes in this thread is that motorists see themselves as being inconvenienced by the presence of bikes on the road."

Not from me. My resentment is the removal of capacity and using our dollars to do it. You ask Metro or Community Transit and they want ridership and more buses yet the elected dope is reducing their ability to navigate.

Where is it written that delibrately removing road capacity for cars, buses and trucks improves transportation? Explain how 125th NE, a long extemely large hill, needed to be reduced to two lanes and two bike lanes that NEVER get used because it's a long ass steep hill that nobody wants to ride a bike on? This mayor and the dopes supporting him have gotta go. I wish I could vote him out but I will never live in King County let alone Seattle again.

You need to reach in the bag and grab a clue, the color white is most visible...duh!

While trying to figure out why McGinn was building bike lanes on the eastside I came across an interesting blog entry that might answer some questions about NE 125th.

http://seattlebikeblog.com/2011/08/24/bl...-125th-project/

It seems NE 125th isn't McGinn's baby and this 'road diet' stuff isn't just about bikes. In W. Seattle they recently finished one of these projects on a portion of Fauntleroy and it's actually a big improvement over what was there previously. It's sort of counter-intuitive, but sometimes taking lanes out improves traffic flow, especially on urban arterials.

I never said I was blaming you for coming up with these ideas, but you are supporting them.

I don't hate or resent people who ride bikes...I own and occasionally ride one. I also do so only on bike paths, the right side of the white line on roads that have a decent size shoulder, or the frick'n sidewalk. These are all places a bike actually belongs, not in a traffic lane of a road.

What I fail to understand is how we are going out of our way to accomodate bicyclists on roadways that were not built for their use, and that they don't directly help pay to maintain (extremely minor issue), or most importantly, build (the main issue). It's obvious that we are moving toward a more 'user fee' based tax system, and I'm ok with that. General funds are easier to confuse and abuse. But, this issue is an awful lot like...

Commercial fisherman, who recieve a huge subsidy to their industry because they pay almost nothing for access to often ridiculous amounts of allocation in almost every fishery. Most everyone seems to agree it makes no sense. So tell me, what's the difference?

Lowering speed limits and coverting car lanes to bike lanes to 'encourage' us to ride bikes? Really? Sort of a "if you build it they will come' kind of dream? How did carpool lanes work out? Is that dream not old enough to have had time to come to fruition yet?

And does that mean the various fisheries managers are trying to get us all to become commercial fisherman?

So many questions...

Ranty Armstrong.

From your "Bikeblog"

"Indeed! They are sort of about bikes. They are also sort of about dramatically reducing the rates of speeding, traffic collisions and pedestrian injuries and fatalities."

The mentality is we are saving lives by slowing everything down not just putting in bike lanes so don't beat the newly powerful BikePAC up about it. Of course slowing everything down and decreasing capacity is going to save lives. It also SLOWS TRAFFIC DOWN!. This looks like a call for Captain Obvious here. My point has been made exactly and I WILL blame the BikePAC and it needs it's power cut down to it's one tenth of one percent. I say we now dedicate the bike lanes to motorcycles. A lot more deaths on Motorcycles than bicycles. And while I am at it a speed limit on bikes. No greater than 5 MPH anywhere anytime. Remember it's about saving lives and that's a good one.

That Bikeblog has so many glaring errors and assumptions as to be absolutely as worthless as they are claiming the other side writes.

Those cocky bike riders will eventually be hauled away in an ambuLANCE no doubt.

Sol Duc,

White is one good color choice, but if you used more than your intuition for an information source you would know that chartruse is statistically more visible in traffic, and many fire engines and ambulances use that color. I don't have a chartruse jersey, but I have some colorful ones that you'd likely think are ghey (sic).

Call Aunty Ranty all you want, but she's still right, and you're wrong. I was just talking with a guy about the book Traffic (2008) the other day and then reading up on it a bit, and sure enough, traffic engineers worldwide are trying to change most everyone's driving behavior. I wondered about roundabouts and, yup, they're building them everywhere to force us to drive more safely, i.e. you can't drive as fast through intersections when you have to negotiate a roundabout. It's a sign of the times and too damn many people.

Backlash2,

Where do you get your notion that bikes don't belong on the traffic lane of a road? Out of your ass? Seriously, because it's sure not the law, given that traffic law has a fair bit to say about bikes on roads. Therefore, traffic law certainly expects that bikes will be on roads. I read that comment a lot that bikes don't belong on roads, yet no one can produce an authoritative source for that contention - because there isn't one. I'm curious where you came up with that idea.

Stlhead,

Interesting point that you want to impose a 5 mph speed limit on bikes. You might find interesting that John Forrester, who wrote the book Effective Cycling, claims that 5 mph is the maximum safe speed on MUTs (Multi Use Trails, often called bike paths). His conclusion is supported by the fact that MUTs support casual walkers (pedestirans), kids, dog walkers, joggers, in-line skaters, and sometimes equestrians. Consequently riding a bike on MUTs is less safe, in terms of number of accidents per 1,000 miles ridden, for competent cyclists than riding in motor vehicle traffic on roads. Therefore if you follow the object science bikes belong on roads with motor vehicles. Counter-intuitive, huh?

Sg

Sure as long as they aren' t impeding traffic. Unfortunately impeding traffic seems to be the goal of the bike lobby. Roundabouts have been around for decades.

Chuck nailed it. :>)

No BW just thought it was funny.

Typo.

Roundabouts are fantastic if everyone has their head out of their ass. They move traffic far better and more safely than lit intersections.

Traffic problems aren't caused by too many cars, or buses, or bikes. They're caused by dipsh!ts who can't f'n drive/ride/pedal correctly.

There is one spot in the entire state where the traffic congestion is caused by a lack of road space, and that's under the convention center on I-5 - everywhere else it's caused by dipsh!ts doing stupid crap. If you dispute that, then you ARE one of the dipsh!ts doing stupid crap and you just don't know it.

Ranty, does your bike have a basket ?

AM - I know that stretch of road, and if you put me in every car on the road, you'd see a mild slowdown at worst.

Going from 4 lanes to 2 is not some impossible feat, or even a difficult one..........unless you're an idiot. They warn you for miles that it's going to happen, and yet some donkey will wait until the last second, hit his brakes, and start the whole thing turning into a cluster.

The grinding lockdown IS caused by idiots. Traffic might slow there if you removed the donkeys, but the gridlock is donkey-caused.

I don't have a problem with bicyclists (as opposed to bikers, who keep up with traffic). In fact I even had one over for dinner once.

Your point?

Changing from 50 to 40 is different than changing from 50 to zero, which is what happens now...........and is caused by idiots.

The new avatar is seasonally appropriate but this fits in soooo many more ways Aunt B....

Best movie of all time.

No shortage of those on the road and in the Seattle Mayor's office....


Use to race bicycles with some success. Seen my fill of idiots on both sides of the equation. Now I spend most of my cycling time mountain biking trails even though the local rural roads are relatively quiet. Still see them but not as many....

I say there is............if it wasn't for all the idiots.

For a while Seattle wanted to put bike lanes on 1st Ave So. even though 4 blocks east is the bus transit corridor which would be a natural for a bike lane.

Yeah, but one is the truth, and the other would be a lie.

Breaking news!!!!!
I saw one bike on NE 125th today. Young kid on a BMX in the bike lane, no helmet and going down hill faster then the cars.
Looked like a safety issue to me.

Easily argued if you don't know what educated, competent drivers can accomplish.

You have no facts to back up your claim, either, because that section of road had never been commuted through without a bunch of idiots present to foul it up.

But go ahead and pretend you're right and I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

Traffic jams are caused by the same idiotic actions wherever they exist. I don't need to drive through there daily to know this.

WTF do you know about my driving? Have you ever driven anywhere with me? Have you ever seen me drive? So you're just talking straight out your ass, huh?

Typical.

I think you two are just padding your post count...kind of like I am with this post

Fish on...

Todd

"I bet you're the one throwing a drink at Salmo g when he's riding his bike too."

Why would you share your booze while driving?

9.1

BikePAC:
The road is too wide. It needs to be narrowed and the speed reduced. If that bike had been slowly blocking traffic on a one lane road he wouldn't have needed to change lanes.

Also, we need to remove all safety features from autos so that drivers get hurt just as much as bicyclist's in an accident.

...??????

Them bicycles get beat up by anything!