- 20,415
- 10,332
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2001
Two things:
I have a problem with the city bending over backwards to take care of the relatively insignificant bicycle traffic around here (Seattle). One example is with a relatively major arterial in the U-District. During rush hour, they had a standard "no parking" lane from 4-6 pm to increase traffic lanes from two to three. It worked fine. Cyclists would stay right, buses used that lane, and you just went around slower traffic...enter in the whiny cyclists. They felt they were in danger on that stretch of road. So the city's solution: remove the no parking signs, add a bike lane. So now, during RUSH HOUR on an arterial, there is no extra lane for cars, the cyclists get their own lane, and buses have to maneuver in and out of traffic. It's just NOT efficient.
My other beef is with cyclists who don't move over to let a line of cars go by, or are so incredibly slow it creates a backup. If cars can't cause backups of more than five, then bikes shouldn't be allowed to either. Ticket them.
I have a problem with the city bending over backwards to take care of the relatively insignificant bicycle traffic around here (Seattle). One example is with a relatively major arterial in the U-District. During rush hour, they had a standard "no parking" lane from 4-6 pm to increase traffic lanes from two to three. It worked fine. Cyclists would stay right, buses used that lane, and you just went around slower traffic...enter in the whiny cyclists. They felt they were in danger on that stretch of road. So the city's solution: remove the no parking signs, add a bike lane. So now, during RUSH HOUR on an arterial, there is no extra lane for cars, the cyclists get their own lane, and buses have to maneuver in and out of traffic. It's just NOT efficient.
My other beef is with cyclists who don't move over to let a line of cars go by, or are so incredibly slow it creates a backup. If cars can't cause backups of more than five, then bikes shouldn't be allowed to either. Ticket them.
