| |
Main
Date: 11 Apr 2007 14:32:56
From: nash
Subject: separated bike lanes or this t-shirt
|
I bought 2 for the summer.
http://www.gvcc.bc.ca/
|
|
| |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 10:36:31
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: separated bike lanes or this t-shirt
|
nash wrote:
> I bought 2 for the summer.
> http://www.gvcc.bc.ca/
Why the term, "/separated/ bike lanes"? Do you call car lanes /separated/
east-bound lanes just because there's a dotted white line there?
I prefer "/delineated/ bike lanes" -- shows the planners accounted for bike
use, and drivers not only accept but /expect/ to see us there. Works
really, really well.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 18:12:58
From: nash
Subject: Re: separated bike lanes or this t-shirt
|
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message
news:461d1ca0$0$9886$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> nash wrote:
>> I bought 2 for the summer.
>> http://www.gvcc.bc.ca/
>
> Why the term, "/separated/ bike lanes"? Do you call car lanes /separated/
> east-bound lanes just because there's a dotted white line there?
>
> I prefer "/delineated/ bike lanes" -- shows the planners accounted for
> bike use, and drivers not only accept but /expect/ to see us there. Works
> really, really well.
The whole problem with using bike lanes is why you think they are great.
When they are not there the drivers do not accept you being there.
In other words you are not suppose to be on the road without it. Walk the
rest of the way I guess : )
the "separated bike lane" term was just taken from the other thread word for
word but I get your logic
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 13:56:01
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: separated bike lanes or this t-shirt
|
nash wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
> news:461d1ca0$0$9886$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> nash wrote:
>>> I bought 2 for the summer.
>>> http://www.gvcc.bc.ca/
>>
>> Why the term, "/separated/ bike lanes"? Do you call car lanes
>> /separated/ east-bound lanes just because there's a dotted white
>> line there? I prefer "/delineated/ bike lanes" -- shows the planners
>> accounted
>> for bike use, and drivers not only accept but /expect/ to see us
>> there. Works really, really well.
> The whole problem with using bike lanes is why you think they are
> great. When they are not there the drivers do not accept you being
> there.
Only the jerks think/act like that; I can't remember the last time I got a
"get off the road" yell. (In fact, I'm not sure I've ever gotten one.)
Here in LoSoCal, at least, drivers are pretty darned used to seeing and
sharing the roads with bike riders.
> In other words you are not suppose to be on the road without it. Walk the
> rest of the way I guess : )
> the "separated bike lane" term was just taken from the other thread
> word for word but I get your logic
Yeah, I just think of them as designated or delineated or assigned or
whatever -- not separated at all.
|
|
