We Need To Do More To Become "Bicycle-Friendly"

[Jay]

You must be kidding wrote:

<quoted text>
Despite what the new generation of enviro's would have us believe, living in the burbs is not a bad thing and it does not make you anti-Earth to have a home in the suburbs.

Please, show us who said that living in suburbs makes you "anti-Earth".

[Marklar]

Jay wrote:

<quoted text>
No one said bikes will take care of all of our needs, You made that up. And the spirit of your rant will come as quite a shock to the people of metro Boston, who have had a great mass transit system for some time, more bikes and bike-friendly intermodal transit, and do a lot of telecommuting. Can you imagine Boston with nothing but cars?
Oh yeah, it's called Hartford.
The word "evil" does not appear in Rick's column.

Bingo. Hartford's example has apparently been Montgomery, Alabama. Get rid of all mass transit, put highways everywhere. Thanks for the mess DOT.

[you must be kidding]

Jay wrote:

<quoted text>
No one said bikes will take care of all of our needs, You made that up. And the spirit of your rant will come as quite a shock to the people of metro Boston, who have had a great mass transit system for some time, more bikes and bike-friendly intermodal transit, and do a lot of telecommuting. Can you imagine Boston with nothing but cars?
Oh yeah, it's called Hartford.
The word "evil" does not appear in Rick's column.

The "spirit," as you call it, of Rick's rant (rants for that matter as he has a few other ridiculous articles out there), are anti-automobile. The "spirit" of the Courant's Editorial and Opinion writers, for the most part, including Rick, is pro-anything but highways. Oh, talk to Hartford in terms of the alignment of I-84 as they are the ones that effectively resisted a circumferential route some 40 or 50 years ago.

Mass transit and alternative modes of transportation have their place, I am not arguing with that. The reality however is that mass transit and alternative modes of transport have incredible limitations particularly in a state like CT.

[BallBags]

Jeff H wrote:

<quoted text>
Gas taxes pay for roads, how would you fund bike paths?

how about an oxygen tax, for every time they have to inflate their tires? or how about a maintenance penalty for their bike being maintenance being in order? they have that in Jersey

[BallBags]

Jay wrote:

<quoted text>
No one said bikes will take care of all of our needs, You made that up. And the spirit of your rant will come as quite a shock to the people of metro Boston, who have had a great mass transit system for some time, more bikes and bike-friendly intermodal transit, and do a lot of telecommuting. Can you imagine Boston with nothing but cars?
Oh yeah, it's called Hartford.
The word "evil" does not appear in Rick's column.

people COULD just live in the same city that they work in. get rid of the guilty folks who commit crimes by actually "snitching" on them, wether you live in Hartford or wethersfield. although it will be a task in Hartford, it CAN be done if everybody pulls together.

I still say people should work where they live and prepare to move if their job moves too....given the opportunity to do so.....

[FatSean]

Ignorance is assuming that this alternative energy source will come on line and usable before oil prices get too painful.

I really doubt that will happen. I can afford $8.00 gas for a year or two, including the inevitable price increases it causes. I went to school, saved money, and I'm comfy now.

Most people, especially the low-buck chumps in here crapping all over the idea of conservation...they're living paycheck to paycheck.

It'll be fun to watch them squirm and beg for government handouts.

[Jay]

you must be kidding wrote:

<quoted text>
The "spirit," as you call it, of Rick's rant (rants for that matter as he has a few other ridiculous articles out there), are anti-automobile. The "spirit" of the Courant's Editorial and Opinion writers, for the most part, including Rick, is pro-anything but highways. Oh, talk to Hartford in terms of the alignment of I-84 as they are the ones that effectively resisted a circumferential route some 40 or 50 years ago.
Mass transit and alternative modes of transportation have their place, I am not arguing with that. The reality however is that mass transit and alternative modes of transport have incredible limitations particularly in a state like CT.

More like anti-bad-driver-behavior. Not the same as anti-automobile.

What are those incredible limitations in a state like CT?

[Jay]

you must be kidding wrote:

<quoted text>
The "spirit," as you call it, of Rick's rant (rants for that matter as he has a few other ridiculous articles out there), are anti-automobile. The "spirit" of the Courant's Editorial and Opinion writers, for the most part, including Rick, is pro-anything but highways. Oh, talk to Hartford in terms of the alignment of I-84 as they are the ones that effectively resisted a circumferential route some 40 or 50 years ago.
Mass transit and alternative modes of transportation have their place, I am not arguing with that. The reality however is that mass transit and alternative modes of transport have incredible limitations particularly in a state like CT.

Even if they had built the beltway, there would still have been a 84 thru the city. And travel 95 down the eastern seaboard - it's a coin toss in car-only cities as to which one is the better bet - they both get clogged.

[Jay]

BallBags wrote:

<quoted text>
people COULD just live in the same city that they work in. get rid of the guilty folks who commit crimes by actually "snitching" on them, wether you live in Hartford or wethersfield. although it will be a task in Hartford, it CAN be done if everybody pulls together.
I still say people should work where they live and prepare to move if their job moves too....given the opportunity to do so.....

Do you know of a city in which this has worked? Where snitching has solved the crime and poverty problem so that the middle class has moved back to the center city?

[Miserable Old Man]

Bikes need to ride single file on the SIDE of the road. Why do they ride side by side? To grab each other's silk panties that they wear?

[Jay]

Miserable Old Man wrote:

Bikes need to ride single file on the SIDE of the road. Why do they ride side by side? To grab each other's silk panties that they wear?

Those are spandex shorts. Try riding in jeans, you'll be even more miserable than you admit you are now. Oh, I get it - you were gay-baiting. How original and effective. That should make all the cyclists cry and stay home. Except it won't.

And they're within the law, read it. Often it's because if they want to have a buffer of space for cars that tend to crowd them into the often impassible side of the road. You should see what's on the side of the road. An inch of sand in many places, storm drains, inch or two pieces of broken glass from drivers' discarded bottles, road kill... Imagine if you had to drive through debris as thick as your vehicle's tires. You'd be at the capitol before sundown calling for people's heads.

[feel good legislation]

Jay wrote:

<quoted text>
The fact of the matter is that too many cars are sorry excuses for actual personalities and character, too much driving is transference of emotions and too much horsepower... well... you can complete that analogy on your own.

If people drove their cars the way the bicyclists ride their bikes in my town, you'd never get anywhere. The cyclists are militant here, riding in the travel lane when their is more than ample and debris-free space in the shoulders.

[Jay]

feel good legislation wrote:

<quoted text>
If people drove their cars the way the bicyclists ride their bikes in my town, you'd never get anywhere. The cyclists are militant here, riding in the travel lane when their is more than ample and debris-free space in the shoulders.

Militant? Glastonbury? Please.

[Miserable Old Man]

"Jay" wrote:
Those are spandex shorts. Try riding in jeans, you'll be even more miserable than you admit you are now. Oh, I get it - you were gay-baiting. How original and effective. That should make all the cyclists cry and stay home.

guess you "swallowed the hook"... No they all won't cry and stay home - just the straight ones. And I was complaining about not riding single file - not the fact that they sometimes have to move out into the road because of the junk on the side of it.
As far as the law goes:
(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a
roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, except when (1)
making a left turn pursuant to subsection (b) of section 14-241,
as you said "read it"

[Jay]

Miserable Old Man wrote:

"Jay" wrote:
Those are spandex shorts. Try riding in jeans, you'll be even more miserable than you admit you are now. Oh, I get it - you were gay-baiting. How original and effective. That should make all the cyclists cry and stay home.
guess you "swallowed the hook"... No they all won't cry and stay home - just the straight ones. And I was complaining about not riding single file - not the fact that they sometimes have to move out into the road because of the junk on the side of it.
As far as the law goes:
(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a
roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, except when (1)
making a left turn pursuant to subsection (b) of section 14-241,
as you said "read it"

Yep, that's the "practicable" part. Also you conveniently left out the part about no more than two abreast.

Try it sometime. A real eye-opener.

[what a joke]

Why do they need to ride two abreast in the first place? Why not stay single file. Why is it practical to ride two abreast?

[Miserable Old Man]

from the ct dot website:

(b) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast
except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons
riding two abreast, as provided in this subsection, shall not impede the normal and
reasonable movement of traffic, and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane.

check out the "shall not impede normal traffic" statement.

[Ole Redneck]

I just have my buddy lean out the passenger winder and hit em right on the back of the head with a baseball bat as I dirve by honking and hallorin. Last time they ride in the middle of the road. Hehe

[Jay]

Miserable Old Man wrote:

from the ct dot website:
(b) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast
except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons
riding two abreast, as provided in this subsection, shall not impede the normal and
reasonable movement of traffic, and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane.
check out the "shall not impede normal traffic" statement.

Yep, just like we've quoted here before. If you see them impeding traffic, please call a cop. Even on me.

[Jay]

Ole Redneck wrote:

I just have my buddy lean out the passenger winder and hit em right on the back of the head with a baseball bat as I dirve by honking and hallorin. Last time they ride in the middle of the road. Hehe

Beer bottles work just as well. That's happened to me in Granby, West Hartford and Farmington. And in Farmington I was on the separated bike path, not the road.