'US Bike Route' To Add New Sections Through South Central Indiana

[littletommy]

First off I have loved riding my bike for years. But, we have many miles for bike trails that keep the bikes and cars separate and safe.
I see this as a waste of money.

We have bike/walking trails all over the place here. Most of the trails are through wooded areas and along the tops of flood walls along the river, meaning, no motor vehicles anywhere near.

There’s a stretch of connecting trail that runs along of the main road into where I live for about a half mile. It never fails, on really nice days, there’s always at least one group of douche bags that are just way too cool to ride on the beautiful trail, and insist on impeding traffic on the road. At least once a year I personally see some idiot laying in the roadway because they either got hit by a car, or wiped out on the loose edge of the road. If they would have only stayed on the trail, their day would have continued on without incident.

I’m currently shopping for a new bike, so I can use the trails, but I have to just shake my head at these dopes that refuse to get the hell off the road.

 

[foszoe]

If it doesn't have a motor, it's a bicycle

 

[DoggyDaddy]

If it doesn't have a motor, it's a bicycle

Unless it's a tricycle. Or a tree. Or a rock. Or...

 

[Ingomike]

Funny how INGO finds limitations to freedom if it inconveniences them for a few minutes. A bicycle is exercising freedom of movement and yet I am reading about restrictions on when and where they can be ridden, often accompanied by veiled threats that they better stay out of the way…

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Funny how INGO finds limitations to freedom if it inconveniences them for a few minutes. A bicycle is exercising freedom of movement and yet I am reading about restrictions on when and where they can be ridden, often accompanied by veiled threats that they better stay out of the way…

It's beyond absurd to argue that freedom of movement equates to no restrictions on when/where/how a given form of transportation can be used. That's the same absurdity that protesters taking over roads use. "It's public property and I'm part of the public so I can decide for everyone how this piece of public property is to be used right now".

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Funny how INGO finds limitations to freedom if it inconveniences them for a few minutes. A bicycle is exercising freedom of movement and yet I am reading about restrictions on when and where they can be ridden, often accompanied by veiled threats that they better stay out of the way…

Things have changed Mike. When I was a kid, we didn't think twice about riding on major thoroughfares. But we kept to the edge of the road and didn't impede traffic. Now there is probably 3x the amount of motorized traffic and then throw cell phones into the mix? No way in hell I would do that now. It's no longer safe to do so.

 

[littletommy]

Things have changed Mike. When I was a kid, we didn't think twice about riding on major thoroughfares. But we kept to the edge of the road and didn't impede traffic. Now there is probably 3x the amount of motorized traffic and then throw cell phones into the mix? No way in hell I would do that now. It's no longer safe to do so.

Exactly. The ones I see around here ride along talking with their buddies, while rolling through stop signs and taking up the entire driving lane.

How arrogant/stupid can these people be?

 

[Ingomike]

Things have changed Mike. When I was a kid, we didn't think twice about riding on major thoroughfares. But we kept to the edge of the road and didn't impede traffic. Now there is probably 3x the amount of motorized traffic and then throw cell phones into the mix? No way in hell I would do that now. It's no longer safe to do so.

Wouldn’t do it either, but restrictions are very different.

 

[Ingomike]

It's beyond absurd to argue that freedom of movement equates to no restrictions on when/where/how a given form of transportation can be used. That's the same absurdity that protesters taking over roads use. "It's public property and I'm part of the public so I can decide for everyone how this piece of public property is to be used right now".

Not sure what you thought I said, but I was responding to suggestions that bikes be restricted to paths and not be on the roads. Not that bicycling did not have some restrictions…

 

[two70]

Funny how INGO finds limitations to freedom if it inconveniences them for a few minutes. A bicycle is exercising freedom of movement and yet I am reading about restrictions on when and where they can be ridden, often accompanied by veiled threats that they better stay out of the way…

It's the natural result of people demanding freedom to make poor choices AND freedom from the consequences of those choices. Freedom requires responsibility to work properly, which many conveniently forget or ignore.

Personally, I'm fine with people playing on the roads with their toys so long as they are willing to accept consequences if they ignore basic traffic safety rules and get themselves squished by some unfortunate driver. Unfortunately, as a society we make it the responsibility of drivers to watch out for and protect bikers no matter how poor their choices, which only encourages more and worse poor choices.

 

[Butch627]

I don't know if its still a thing or not but about 10 years ago there were a group of very aggressive bicycle riders who were bullying cars on Milwaukee avenue in Chicago. They rode single speed messenger style bikes and clothes and would break mirrors and dent cars that they felt were not respecting them. There were a number of incidents where they grouped together to beat motorists. I stopped driving on Milwaukee after seeing the hooligans in action a few times.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Not sure what you thought I said, but I was responding to suggestions that bikes be restricted to paths and not be on the roads. Not that bicycling did not have some restrictions…

...and you used the argument "A bicycle is exercising freedom of movement ..." which is what I responded to. Specifically pointing out what an absurd argument it was to use in this context.

Even if we ignore a bicycle doesn't have or exercise rights and you meant the bicyclist:

Can you bicycle on the interstate because freedom of movement? If not, do you (and/or your bike) no longer have "freedom of movement"? Or is it just an absurd argument from the start?

Do I have 'freedom of movement' while walking? So can I walk down the middle of the road if so? If not, do I now not have freedom of movement? It's the same absurd argument street blocking protesters use, is it not?

So, yes, I read what you said. Your point is arguable. Your offered justification of some bicycle right to travel is ridiculously absurd.

 

[Ingomike]

...and you used the argument "A bicycle is exercising freedom of movement ..." which is what I responded to. Specifically pointing out what an absurd argument it was to use in this context.

Even if we ignore a bicycle doesn't have or exercise rights and you meant the bicyclist:

Can you bicycle on the interstate because freedom of movement? If not, do you (and/or your bike) no longer have "freedom of movement"? Or is it just an absurd argument from the start?

Do I have 'freedom of movement' while walking? So can I walk down the middle of the road if so? If not, do I now not have freedom of movement? It's the same absurd argument street blocking protesters use, is it not?

So, yes, I read what you said. Your point is arguable. Your offered justification of some bicycle right to travel is ridiculously absurd.

So if the bicycle was removed from uniform vehicle code for legal road uses period that would restrict freedom of movement and courts have struck down such laws in the past. There is a difference in the interstate highway system and common roads.

 

[MidwesternStructures]

Exactly. The ones I see around here ride along talking with their buddies, while rolling through stop signs and taking up the entire driving lane.

How arrogant/stupid can these people be?

I take at least 3’ when cycling. You’re supposed to give someone 3’ when passing. If I’m riding all the way on the shoulder, people pass with way less room between me and them. Also riding on the shoulder or 6” from the line, if there is no shoulder, is just stupid. That’s where all the broken glass and potholes are. If you hit a pothole wrong and get launched off your bike, congrats now you’re in the middle of the street with not enough time for the car behind you to stop.

The real problem is drivers who roll coal, people who yell for no reason, and people who don’t understand that a bike is legally considered a vehicle and a cyclist has no obligation to ride all the way to right. Cyclists are allowed to take an entire lane if they want to.

Also, riding on the sidewalk is an awful idea. Sidewalk conditions are rarely optimal, people block sidewalks with their cars all the time, and that’s where pedestrians are supposed to walk. When pulling out of a driveway, most drivers are not used to seeing an object moving at 15-20 mph, which could further complicate things.

Obviously don’t ride on the highway or interstate.

 

[Quiet Observer]

Funny how INGO finds limitations to freedom if it inconveniences them for a few minutes. A bicycle is exercising freedom of movement and yet I am reading about restrictions on when and where they can be ridden, often accompanied by veiled threats that they better stay out of the way…

I thought freedom of movement had to do with how your underwear fit or the benefit of a high fiber diet.

 

[bwframe]

I take at least 3’ when cycling. You’re supposed to give someone 3’ when passing. If I’m riding all the way on the shoulder, people pass with way less room between me and them. Also riding on the shoulder or 6” from the line, if there is no shoulder, is just stupid. That’s where all the broken glass and potholes are. If you hit a pothole wrong and get launched off your bike, congrats now you’re in the middle of the street with not enough time for the car behind you to stop.

The real problem is drivers who roll coal, people who yell for no reason, and people who don’t understand that a bike is legally considered a vehicle and a cyclist has no obligation to ride all the way to right. Cyclists are allowed to take an entire lane if they want to.

Also, riding on the sidewalk is an awful idea. Sidewalk conditions are rarely optimal, people block sidewalks with their cars all the time, and that’s where pedestrians are supposed to walk. When pulling out of a driveway, most drivers are not used to seeing an object moving at 15-20 mph, which could further complicate things.

Obviously don’t ride on the highway or interstate.

How many motor vehicles do you allow to be backed up behind you, before pulling off of the roadway to let them by?

 

[printcraft]

How many motor vehicles do you allow to be backed up behind you, before pulling off of the roadway to let them by?

 

[Ingomike]

How many motor vehicles do you allow to be backed up behind you, before pulling off of the roadway to let them by?

Motorists are to pass when safe to do so.

 

[Bugzilla]

I have no problem with this as long as they stay in there own lane. Witch seems to be a problem fore them.

Witch can be a problem fore (sic) everyone!

 

[MidwesternStructures]

How many motor vehicles do you allow to be backed up behind you, before pulling off of the roadway to let them by?

If I’m riding on a rural road with no oncoming traffic, then I’m not going to pull over into a field. If I’m in the city and there’s two lanes, I’m also not going to pull over. I hardly ride on the roads though. The attitude in this thread is how most Americans are and the prime reason I don’t. I mainly ride on rail trails. I live in a college town though, so people here are usually a lot more used to seeing people on bikes and coexisting.

If I’m riding on a road, it’s usually to get from somewhere to a trail and I try and avoid busy roads.

People don’t complain when being backed up on the interstate for 20 minutes, but god forbid they are inconvenienced for 20 seconds by a cyclist.

Cyclists don’t really want to ride on the road more than necessary, especially in cities, but the cycling infrastructure in general sucks. Most bike lanes I’ve rode on in this state tend to end after a few blocks and they’re usually not well maintained. Which is stupid IMO because it’s better for your health, the environment, and less people in cars means the people in cars get to their destinations faster.

One bike lane in particular I can think of is between a straight lane and a right turn lane. The problem is there is literally not enough room for a standard car or SUV in the turning lane without blocking the bike lane.

Sorry for the wall, I am quite passionate about this, especially after seeing what people do to others online.