Bikers on Roads

[Cyclonick182]

if get in an accident with a semi I also probably lose

Not probably, you WILL lose(Maybe not die, but that vehicle will likely be trashed). Ive been there. 4 or 5 years ago now I got hit my a semi(His fault, right on red doesnt count when cross traffic has a green), and I can safely say had I not done my best to evade, Id be dead.

 

[Cy Heavy]

I guess I just see a lot of bikers in the Ankeny area riding on busy roads at dangerous times. I always pass bikers with a full lane and treat them just like another car.

You can basically ride your bike from Ankeny for a long long ways. I never understand why people dont make a point of using bike trails. I never could figure out why (other than the being too lazy to find a trail).

I hate driving my truck in Ankeny with the bad and very aggressive drivers in that town. I sure as heck wouldn't care to let some stupid driver kill me on a bike just for going on a simple recreational bike ride.

Well, when I bike to work from Ankeny to downtown DSM I have to ride on roads to actually get to the trail.

It may also suprise you to find out that "bike trails" are also used by walkers, joggers, people with pets, rollerblades, etc. It can actually be dangerous for bikes to be riding along at 20+ MPH on a trail. So what bikes do, and what motorists that seem to find their road full of bikes often might consider, is we find a different route that doesn't have so much slow moving traffic that may cause a rider/driver to come up on said slow moving object so as to avoid the potential accident.

If you continue to see a lot of bikes on the roads you take and you don't like it, find a new route.

 

[DaddyMac]

Dude, please show me one post that I made that would support any kind of fear that I have for riding my bike.

Please show me on epost where I even remotley showed any concern about riding my bike?


Your response only tells me that YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION. :no:

Well, it would seem that you have a fear of squishing or getting squished and/or dying in a bike/vehicle accident.

We've already established that most bikers understand and accept the risks. The argument against just "get off the freaking road" is that they have a right to be there. Rights don't change the physics of the accident. And although I didn't bother to count, it would seem there have been maybe 30-50 fatalities in bike accidents in the past 5-6 year. Probably already had that many this month in car on car.

So if you're not concerned - I have no idea why you are here other than to stir up trouble. :wideeyed:

Dude, it has nothing to do with right of way. It has everything to do with a 2000 LBS vehical vs 23 pounds of carbon fiber. Who dies?

Um really, maybe, just maybe this should tell you something, Like get off the freakin road.

simple: A 2000 lbs vehical will kill you on a 23 lbs piece of carbon fiber. Why put yourself in that situation. When your head gets squished like a mellon, does having the same"rights" matter?

This update just in.

Cars still remain undefeated against bikes when the two collide. :notworthy:

Experts predict with 100% certainty that autos will remane unbeatable. :wideeyed:

Tragically, the last words of bicyclist still remain..........."But I have rights, damn it.

So tell me what good do rights do when you are squished like a bug.

 

[DaddyMac]

Well, when I bike to work from Ankeny to downtown DSM I have to ride on roads to actually get to the trail.

It may also suprise you to find out that "bike trails" are also used by walkers, joggers, people with pets, rollerblades, etc. It can actually be dangerous for bikes to be riding along at 20+ MPH on a trail. So what bikes do, and what motorists that seem to find their road full of bikes often might consider, is we find a different route that doesn't have so much slow moving traffic that may cause a rider/driver to come up on said slow moving object so as to avoid the potential accident.

If you continue to see a lot of bikes on the roads you take and you don't like it, find a new route.

+1

I live just west of valley junction in WDM. I work not far from the Super Target in Urbandale.

I'd be perfectly happy to see this trail that gets me from one to the other.

At least one that doesn't make me go 3x further out of my way than the route I currently take.

 

[dmclone]

Well, when I bike to work from Ankeny to downtown DSM I have to ride on roads to actually get to the trail.

It may also suprise you to find out that "bike trails" are also used by walkers, joggers, people with pets, rollerblades, etc. It can actually be dangerous for bikes to be riding along at 20+ MPH on a trail.

Let's see what causes more damage

#1 An accident between a bike going 20mph and a person walking at 4mph

or

#2 An accident between a bike doing 20mph and a car doing 55mph


You mention that the trail is busy. Is it busier than the streets you take to work? During my normal trip to work I probably encounter 300-400 cars. Are there 300-400 people on the trails at 7am?

 

[SplitIdentity]

This is usually reserved for the guy that keeps getting dumped over and over again but ... ever think it might be you?

Nope, I'm usually the one doing the dumping

 

[dmclone]

I believe another thing that makes a lot of people mad is that the state has spent 10's of millions of dollar on these bike trails that everyone says we HAVE to have and then we never see anyone on them. Or we see bikes riding on a road right next to them.

 

[clones_jer]

I believe another thing that makes a lot of people mad is that the state has spent 10's of millions of dollar on these bike trails that everyone says we HAVE to have and then we never see anyone on them. Or we see bikes riding on a road right next to them.

this is inaccurate, the trails are very popular. with joggers and walkers, and dogs AND bikes. the one through CR is constantly packed in the summer time.

I'm not sure how many "10's of millions" it takes to lay down limestone on an old rail bed anyway. most trails are just blacktop - as evidenced when they crack, heave and crumble after a few years. I'm sure you just pulled that number out of thin air.

There are more bikers than ever before in Iowa, and every time fuel prices climb more people get serious about it. It's not like you can eliminate bikes so we'd might as well accomidate them.

 

[4429 mcc]

 

[DaddyMac]

Looks like the bike of my brother-in-law who was a bike messenger/delivery person in LA.

Until some kid and his buddies ran him down (as in intentionally chased him and ran into him) and put him in the ER for the evening.

 

[redrocker]

Looks like the bike of my brother-in-law who was a bike messenger/delivery person in LA.

Until some kid and his buddies ran him down (as in intentionally chased him and ran into him) and put him in the ER for the evening.

I hope those punks got caught and got the book through at them.

 

[dmclone]

I'm not sure how many "10's of millions" it takes to lay down limestone on an old rail bed anyway. most trails are just blacktop - as evidenced when they crack, heave and crumble after a few years. I'm sure you just pulled that number out of thin air.

You're correct, I did pull those numbers out of thin air because I knew "10's of millions" would be a low estimate. I should have said "100's of million".

To get an idea just take a look at this spreadsheet and do a search for "bike".

http://www.iowadot.gov/recovery/pdfs/Submittal_FHWA-1586.pdf

This one document has almost 10 million in future spending.


I run on some trails that are popular. However a lot of them rarely get used.

BTW-I'm thinking of no longer running on trails and sidewalks and just run down 141 at 5pm right in the middle of my lane. After all, it's my right!

 

[DaddyMac]

this is inaccurate, the trails are very popular. with joggers and walkers, and dogs AND bikes. the one through CR is constantly packed in the summer time.

I'm not sure how many "10's of millions" it takes to lay down limestone on an old rail bed anyway. most trails are just blacktop - as evidenced when they crack, heave and crumble after a few years. I'm sure you just pulled that number out of thin air.

There are more bikers than ever before in Iowa, and every time fuel prices climb more people get serious about it. It's not like you can eliminate bikes so we'd might as well accomidate them.

Jer - sounds like you bike alot. :wink:

How often do you get bitched at by some leisurely walkers, or a family out for a stroll, or get tangled up in the long leash of somebody walking their dog on those trails.

Nobody has pointed out this magic trail that gets me from my house to work either.

And two things would happen if there weren't as extensive a trail system as there currently is.

1) Bicycling would lose popularity by a large amount. As would most other outdoor endeavors like running, walking, blading.

2) Even so, there would probably be x10 the number of riders on roads that there currently are.

 

[DaddyMac]

Ok - let's put it this way.

DMClone, Southern and 4429. What do you guys want? What should happen?

The arguements spray all over the place. Bikers shouldn't be here, it's not safe, so on and so forth. There are more accidents in the city, there's more danger rural. It's faster here than there.

You guys complain alot. What's the answer? Abolishing bikes? Confine them solely to bike trails (even where there are none)?

What?

 

[DaddyMac]

I hope those punks got caught and got the book through at them.

Unfortunately - no.

As you may surmise, as a bike messenger, he isn't exactly swimming in cash. Turns out the little **** who was driving has a mother who's an attorney.

So - nothing. I think he got a charge of failure to control, or something equally meaningless. But Scott doesn't have the means to pursue any type of civil action. They wouldn't even agree to repair his bike when he offered that in lieu of more damages.

Worst part about it was it happened the day of, or the day before (don't remember which) - my wife's sister (his wife) came back to Iowa to visit. She of course was beside herself all week.

 

[dmclone]

Ok - let's put it this way.

DMClone, Southern and 4429. What do you guys want? What should happen?

The arguements spray all over the place. Bikers shouldn't be here, it's not safe, so on and so forth. There are more accidents in the city, there's more danger rural. It's faster here than there.

You guys complain alot. What's the answer? Abolishing bikes? Confine them solely to bike trails (even where there are none)?

What?

Bikes should only be allowed on roads with a speed limit of 45mph or lower. On any road below 45mph they should have the same rights as cars.


If there is enough demand for a bike lane next to a highway than it should be built by using money by taxing bicyclists.

 

[GoShow97]

Well, it would seem that you have a fear of squishing or getting squished and/or dying in a bike/vehicle accident.

We've already established that most bikers understand and accept the risks. The argument against just "get off the freaking road" is that they have a right to be there. Rights don't change the physics of the accident. And although I didn't bother to count, it would seem there have been maybe 30-50 fatalities in bike accidents in the past 5-6 year. Probably already had that many this month in car on car.

So if you're not concerned - I have no idea why you are here other than to stir up trouble. :wideeyed:

Wow, just wow, You really should go back and re-read this thread and then reflect on the position of my post. Clearly you are confused about my position :wink:

 

[DaddyMac]

Bikes should only be allowed on roads with a speed limit of 45mph or lower. On any road below 45mph they should have the same rights as cars.


If there is enough demand for a bike lane next to a highway than it should be built by using money by taxing bicyclists.

Fair enough. A concise and not all too unreasonable answer. Thank you.

Counter - you realize when speaking of rural areas, many if not most roads are 55, right? Or at the very least that's the going rate of traffic - at best.

What about the designated bike lane we spoke of heading from Slater to Ames? I think at most, perhaps 1/3 rd of that has a bike lane. What do do then?

FWIW - I think you're right. If a good trail is nearby, in such sitations it's best for bikers to use that trail. I think most do.

I'll give you a personal example. I live west of Valley Junction and enjoy riding down to the ballpark for I-Cubs games. As you are well aware. The only way to get across the river or Walnut (??) Creek is Grand Avenue or 63rd out to Park. Neither appetizing alternatives. So I will ride back streets as far as I can to 63rd (50 mph zone), out the mile or so to Park (35 mph - yeah right) and then to Flagg into Water Works and the trails right up to the ball park. I feel it's safer than Grand - by a long shot. But I have no other choice than to take some rather undesirable streets. (well, they finished a connector this year, so I can avoid it - and will)

One other example I know of, had some talk of bad confrontations (both ways) is last summer. Western Trail running diagonally from Park Ave out to Hwy 28 was washed out and closed. So many bikers rode Park, to 63rd and out to where they could get on the trail again at Pine Ave (that stretch of 63rd is 55). Now they would most certainly have taken that trail - if it were there.

 

[DaddyMac]

Wow, just wow, You really should go back and re-read this thread and then reflect on the position of my post. Clearly you are confused about my position :wink:

Fine - what is your position? Cause I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one confused about it.

 

[GoShow97]

Fine - what is your position? Cause I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one confused about it.

That you are brain dead, ???
You can't even follow a simple thread and stay focused on topic. MY position is clearly stated in the several post that I have made, you really should read them and comprehend them prior to responding, you should try it some time, it helps with understanding the issues. just a hint. :biglaugh: