New Michigan law gives walkers, bikers a share of streets

[Still a Democrat]

Source: Detroit Free Press

A little-noticed act passed by the Michigan Legislature this year could have a big impact one day on how our cities look.

The act directs transportation planners in the state to plan for what's called complete streets -- streets that accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists along with cars and trucks.

It means that Michigan is now on the record acknowledging that it is a mistake to build roadways just to move high volumes of vehicle traffic as fast as possible. Designing healthy cities means considering all potential users of a street, regardless of their age or ability.





Read more: http://www.freep.com/article/20101226/BUSINESS04/12260528/1017/business/New-Michigan-law-gives-walkers-bikers-a-share-of-streets

[Demeter]

1. Right

All the elderly with their hip and knee replacements, hopping on their bikes to bring a load of groceries home....

Wake me when the madness stops. I saw a cyclist, going the wrong way on a one way street, take to the air when he drove in front of traffic, and so did my young children...

The arrogance of bicyclists, assuming the absolute right to the road, no defensive driving or even intelligent driving...been there, seen that, don't want to see more death.

[vanamonde]

2. I saw a motorist

blow through a stop sign at high speed. The arrogance of motorists, assuming the absolute right to the road, no defensive driving or even intelligent driving...been there, seen that, don't want to see more death.

The arrogance of motorists, assuming that they have the right to pollute the air, pave over thousands of acres a year, contribute to suburban sprawl. Wake me when the madness stops.

[Demeter]

4. Oh, I've Seen That, Too

I was rear-ended at a stop light, with the two year old in seat belts...no injury, since a Volvo does what it is advertised to do: protect the passengers from harm.

Like to see a bicycle with those features.

[CreekDog]

23. some people can't afford cars

and you mock them for what they can't afford.

a new low.

[nosferaustin]

3. right

not to mention the arrogance of motorized vehicle drivers who think that because there are a few cyclists who ride like idiots all of us should be lumped into the same category. Have you looked behind the windscreen of your fellow drivers? Just because you're used to seeing people drive like idiots doesn't make it okay (speeding through school zones, driving 10 mph above the posted limit, rolling stops without looking at the sidewalk for pedestrians, driving drunk, etc.)

The Complete Streets concept does not mean that cyclist or pedestrians can suddenly walk or ride with impunity in all of your precious car lanes, it just means that planners need to consider all forms of transportation when making decisions.

More than ten times the number of people are killed every year in this country in traffic "accidents" as were killed on 9/11. Yet, we as a country are okay with that because to not be would mean we'd have to reconsider the way we live our lives. You shouldn't have to get in a car to drive to the grocery store five blocks down the street. Complete Streets helps make that more realistic. It's common sense.

[Demeter]

5. Some people need more than beer for groceries, too

and unless it is a completely newly designed street, current traffic safety is in jeopardy and inevitably degraded.

[nosferaustin]

6. degraded?

Here in Salt Lake City, they just repaved Main Street and, instead of re-striping for two lanes of traffic in each direction, the city actually looked at traffic patterns on the street. What they found is that there was no benefit to having four lanes for motorized traffic, so despite the screams of alarm from local business and the you're going to destroy my business by taking away access to cars mentality, they added bike lanes in both directions. And guess what? The same number of drivers somehow seem to make it down Main Street every single day. Only now it's safer for more cyclists to do so as well.

Change and accommodation for all users doesn't translate into degradation and a loss of safety nor does it mean ripping up streets and rebuilding them, it means changing the mindset that the only progress in transportation is moving more cars quicker, something that is apparently incredibly hard to do.

[Demeter]

7. Most cities don't have 4 lanes to reorganize

It is customary to barely have two.

[nosferaustin]

well

my example was just that, an example. It may just mean that people have to learn to just get along better with other types of vehicles on the road. May be as simple as lowering a speed limit or enforcing existing laws to get drivers to slow down and pay attention to what's going on outside their vehicle. Radical concepts like that.

[CreekDog]

27. where do people w/o cars and in wheelchairs, for instance go then?

you seem to be offended that any consideration is made for them in any way whatsoever.

my coworker in a wheelchair was hit while crossing in a sidewalk here just last week.

apparently you believe the car was victimized.

[kickysnana]

47. Sidewalks. n/t

[CreekDog]

49. and if they have bicycles?

what the hell is going on here? has DU become anti-bike?

wow.

[nosferaustin]

8. btw

though I do appreciate a good brew (and often carry four full growlers from the local brewery home in my panniers, your assumption that you need 2,000 lbs of steel and motor around your bags of groceries to get them home safely is part of the problem. With a little ingenuity and planning, you can carry a lot more than most people think with a bike (and trailer, possibly.) Sure, it may mean you go to the grocery twice a week for smaller loads instead of stocking up on two weeks worth of crap at a time, or it may mean planning your meals more carefully and maybe not buying two cases of drinking water at Costco, or it may mean getting a trailer for your bike so you can haul two twenty lbs bags of cat food, a sack of potatoes and plenty of beer for the weekend along with all of your other groceries like I do. What it does mean is thinking more, being more aware of your environment and what you're buying, and I can't see any harm in that.

[Demeter]

12. And where do you put the children, the disabled, the elderly?

The toilet paper, the diaper bag, etc.

Do you really think the average woman can carry water on her head, like her African sisters? And get anything else done, that is?

[a la izquierda]

14. I can't carry the water on my head...

but with some panniers and a backpack, I can carry a week's load of groceries for my husband and myself...it's too bad I have to dodge idiot rednecks in cars and trucks who enjoy messing with a woman on a bicycle. With all my groceries.

[nosferaustin]

15. the problem is apparent

You seem to think that everyone has to be using the same type of vehicle for things to run smoothly. That is exactly the type of thinking that is wrong with the status quo. Nobody is saying that everyone has to walk or ride bikes, only an idiot would think that that concept is viable. But, everyone doesn't need to drive a polluting car or truck or SUV to go down to the local Walmart, either. Why is it so hard for you to conceive of situation where some people would choose to drive a car, some would choose to ride a bike and some may even choose to walk?

Trying to make an effort to use my bike as a primary means of transport doesn't mean that I can't get everything done that I want / need to. It simply means that I plan my day more carefully and try to do things in a way that is more convenient. And yes, it means that I may cut some things out because no, maybe I don't feel like riding 20 miles because someone's having a sale on widgets. Or, sometimes, I take one of my cars. But, I shouldn't have to choose to not ride or walk because the streets between here and where I need to go are designed only for people who decided to drive that day to get there as fast as possible without having to care about the choice they make.

[PavePusher]

56. Where to put stuff and kids? Ummm...

http://www.performancebike.com/bikes//CatalogSearchResultView?storeId=10052&catalogId=10551&langId=-1&pageSize=16&beginIndex=0&sortBy=Dollar+Rank%2F%2F1&searchType=resultSet&cn1=&searchTerm=trailer

http://www.nashbar.com/bikes//CatalogSearchResultView?storeId=10053&catalogId=10052&langId=-1&pageSize=24&beginIndex=0&searchType=resultSet&sortBy=Dollar+Rank%2F%2F1&cn1=&searchTerm=trailer

Just the tip of the iceberg, mind you.

Broaden your horizonns.

[CreekDog]

29. why on earth should you have to argue with such nonsense?

the other poster is plainly against anything on the road that is not a vehicle.

i guess if you drive somewhere but you don't park close enough the poster will be angry with ya! :rofl:

[AndyTiedye]

17. Done Right, This Should Reduce Conflicts Between Cars and Bikes

A well-designed street should hold few surprises for drivers and riders.
It should be obvious to each how to get from A to B safely.

Designing streets as though bicycles and pedestrians did not exist
will simply result in worse congestion as they try to make their way
across and through the traffic.

Seems to me that schools would do well to offer some sort of bike education too.

[Prometheus Bound]

9. You seem to think the law makes it mandatory for everyone to ride a bike or something.

There is no law against elderly people driving a car as far as I understood the article.

So what is your point?

[tinrobot]

11. The arrogance of motorists, assuming the absolute right to the road

It cuts both ways.

Besides, stupid cyclists don't last long.

Sadly, stupid motorists often do.

[Odin2005]

13. Oh god, this anti-bike propaganda is annoying.

:puke:

[Demeter]

18. Bicycles are toys

for recreation. for sport. Not for work, not for living, not for transportation.

If it were possible to live without cars, people would. The expense alone is a clue. Cars are not only necessary, but indispensable in this country due to the present structure of commerce, and reducing traffic flow so bikers can gum up thoroughfares is unsafe and unwise.

Ann Arbor is doing this every year. It's becoming unlivable, and driving is so much more dangerous thanks to the increased presence of bikes on roads that are inappropriate for biking.

Not everyone is 20 years old. Not everyone has a carefree student life. But why make daily transport so much more dangerous and difficult for the 95%?

And bikes in the snow? Is this even remotely sensible? Only if one has a death wish.

Bicycles are not an answer to any of our urban transport problems.

The taxicabs for the elderly allow them to bring one bag of groceries home, in their laps. Forget trying to shop by bus. There aren't delivery trucks, as there were in my youth, unless you want things to go UPS, which isn't economical for local transport.

[Jkid]

19. And not everyone is able to drive.

You're suggesting that everyone should be able to drive even if they have a disability that renders them unable to drive or even if it costs them $6,000 for driving lessons and driving experience to even get a provisional license (Maryland)?

[Demeter]

20. Even more physical and mental ability is required for biking

[Odin2005]

22. If that were true I could not bike. What nonsense.

[CreekDog]

32. Keith Olbermann doesn't drive --apparently cannot either

due to an injury.

[tinrobot]

38. Biking also promotes physical and mental ability.

But hey, we should put more money into freeways and ban bicycles and pedestrians from the roads. That way, people can sit on their ass even more than they do now. No physical ability required.

[lfairban]

52. Here is part of the answer.

If you are constrained by your physical ability, you may wish to consider an ebike. I am not at all "fit" and the electric assist means I can cruise at 17mph rather than 12mph. According to Google, a recent trip by car would have required 18 min. by car and 41 min. by bike. I did it in about 32 min. by ebike, which is somewhere in the middle.

Besides, ebikes are fun, kind of like ridding a motorcycle without all the noise and a fraction of the mechanical problems.

As for your mental abilities, you are on your own.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Demeter]

26. My Autistic Daughter Cannot Ride a Bike, Period

she is totally dependent on others for anything beyond walking distance.

When your knees give out, what is your fallback plan?

When the road is covered in ice?

In the dark, in bad neighborhoods, in so many circumstances, a bicycle is not a solution. It is life-threatening.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CreekDog]

31. I just got back from New York City and I can assure you that many live without cars there

and without cars here in San Francisco.

i don't know why you seem to resent people without cars so much --as if they are telling you what to do. actually, most of them just want to be safer walking the streets, which is a reasonable request.

[CreekDog]

35. yes, bicycles are just toys

TOYS:

MORE TOYS:
?w=420
JUST TOYS:

AND THIS TOY, IT HAS A STUPID GROCERY BAG IN IT! THE ARROGANCE!!!


ALL THESE TOYS. don't these people do anything useful? :sarcasm:

[nosferaustin]

36. wow

Bicycles are toys. Mature argument there.

Cars are indispensable, I would agree. Especially if you choose to be enslaved to a system that relies on polluting petrochemicals, planned obsolescence and acceptance of the deaths of over 30,000 of your fellow citizens every year and refuse to accept that your view is not the only one.

Good luck with your driving. Hope that I'm not the unfortunate person on a bike that you decide is the one too many to have inconvenienced you as you live the inevitable American dream on the thoroughfares.

Happy motoring.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

41. This brings to mind an encounter that three of us had with a motorist.

Disclaimer: Yes; there are bicyclists that do stupid things also but...

We have every legal right to be on the road, but in this area (among many) motorists seem to think that it's illegal to be on the road with our bikes. Well actually, it's illegal to ride them anywhere other than the road once you hit 10 or 12 years old.

There were three of us riding single file in a 25 MPH zone. Granted, it was a decent uphill slope so we were only going about 20 MPH. One woman decided that the few seconds of her precious life that we were stealing from her was enough of a reason to be 6 inches from my back wheel. This was on a 4 lane road and all that she had to do was wait a few seconds until it was safe to go around us. So of course she had to lay on the horn and tell us to get off the road when she went around us (leaving us maybe a foot of clearance).

Five seconds later when we pulled up behind her at a red light, (yeah she really gained a lot by almost hitting us), we thanked her for almost hitting us and asked her how much time did she really save since we were keeping up to her. This was her classic response........

Grow up and buy a car!! :wtf:

Wow, that really put us in our place! Our response was that one of the reasons that we ride is so that we wouldn't end up looking like her.

I still don't understand the attitude that so many texting, eating, DVD watching and navigation scanning motorists have about bicycles, but they are the ones who need to grow up.

[Book Lover]

39. "Bicycles are not an answer to any of our urban transport problems."

The rest is self-delete. I'm not going to waste my time with someone who can't concede when shown proof.

[Posteritatis]

40. That's right! Bicycles serve no real purpose ever anywhere! Demeter has spoken! (nt)

[lfairban]

51. This is silly.

Bicycles are toys for recreation. for sport. Not for work, not for living, not for transportation.

Tell this to my daughter who takes her bike to work daily, about 6 miles.

Before I retired, I biked 3.5 miles downtown to work because it was faster than using a bike or the bus.

I can also carry home 40 lbs. of groceries on my bike. The median vehicle trip in the US is about 3 miles. Most people can do 3 miles on a bike.

And bikes in the snow? Is this even remotely sensible? Only if one has a death wish.

I have ridden in snow before, and in traffic. Bike tires get more grip than you think. If it gets to glare ice, on the other hand, you really need studded tires.

[PavePusher]

57. "Bikes are toys", my firm gluteus maximus.

http://www.croozerdesigns.com/

http://www.workcycles.com/

http://www.ibike.org/economics/work-bike.htm

http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/gary_fisher_collection/urban_utility/transport/




Your bigotry and laziness are revealing themselves.

[CreekDog]

30. yes! and it is NOT liberal or progressive!

:wtf:

[a la izquierda]

16. Oh, and for someone with "solar/appropriate tech"

in their profile, you sure seem in love with the car culture. You saw a cyclist, um, one cyclist going one way.
Let me tell you something. I race mountain bikes, and logged a couple thousand miles on my road bike last summer. I know the rules of the road, and they're the same damn rules you have in your 1 ton vehicle, designed to protect you with metal and seatbelts. I've got lycra and a helmet, which thank god protected my head when I crashed once. That crash fractured my leg, tore ligaments in my knee and left a hematoma the size of a grapefruit in my leg. I've had stuff thrown at me, I've been run onto the curb, into a car and had trucks deliberately cross into my lane to scare me. And for what? Because I ride a bike? What a country.

[CreekDog]

25. for someone complaining about arrogance, your message is loaded with it

questioning cyclists use of roads when they aren't allowed on sidewalks.

assuming that all elderly drive rather than walk or bike anywhere (many elderly cannot drive and actually must walk most places they go.

and all this anger at this law, which is largely symbolic anyway.

how can you have so much anger at a law that is designed to protect pedestrians? people get hit by cars all the time WHILE walking legally! heck, i drive, but like everybody else, i'm also a pedestrian --in a downtown area no less.

:wtf:

[Fumesucker]

42. As forty year street motorcyclist I can assure you...

I can assure you that the only reason most car drivers ever pull their head out of their ass is to talk or text on their cell phone.

Ride a bicycle or a motorcycle for a year exclusively and get back to us about how fucking great car driver's skill and awareness levels are.

[LanternWaste]

50. I imagine we quite often...

"I saw a cyclist, going the wrong way..."

I imagine we quite often cull anecdotal evidence to better validate our positions when we have no other valid arguments to offer...

[Crowman1979]

10. Good idea! The more we steer away from the state's community destroying highway system...

...the better our cities will recover. Because the transit system is a mess. With little to no public transit infrastructure whatsoever.

[GKirk]

24. The downside to this that I see is...

...in Michigan there are 3 months or more of weather that is not amenable to biking, so all that pavement that is reserved for the bikes is wasted.

[Demeter]

28. the downside is that retrofitting is not working

and that so much money is wasted on what is best suited to recreation, shoehorning it into commercial areas, endangering all that use the road.

Does anyone seriously really think car drivers want to hit cyclists and pedestrians? Or would they like to have a totally non-eventful trip to do their business without putting their lives and those around them into jeopardy?

[CreekDog]

33. It doesn't matter if cars don't want to hit bikers and pedestrians --it'S THAT THEY DO HIT THEM!

and wherever there are lots of people, you have to protect the safety of all who move and people on foot and bicycle and wheelchair are vulnerable to cars, not the other way around.

[Fumesucker]

43. Judging by their actions I say that some car drivers do indeed want to hit cyclists or pedestrians..

Otherwise it would be impossible to explain the drivers who appear to deliberately swerve toward cyclists, who chunk beer cans and all sorts of other debris at pedestrians and cyclists.

How about the woman who recently ran over and killed the Green Party Senate candidate in Maryland and then dragged the woman's bicycle underneath her SUV for several miles?

Edited to add details..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/natasha-pettigrew-green-p_n_733533.html

Police say the woman driving the Cadillac Escalade that hit Pettigrew kept driving nearly four miles to her home, even though the bicycle was still lodged underneath the vehicle.

[hayu_lol]

34. The real answer is that we need safe streets for both car, truck,

and bike traffic. The real answer is to tear down our older cities gradually and redesign new streets/roadways to encourage both kinds of traffic and with more safety zones for pedestrians at the same time. We cannot do that with cities built over 100 years ago.

Many places in Europe were rebuilt after the war with provision for bike and pedestrian traffic. We didn't lose our old cities.

Part of the redesign should include wide spacious alleys for truck deliveries to get double parked trucks off the main drags.

Sure, bikers need to be protected, and they cannot be with our existing street system. Wouldn't be a bad idea to license bikes used on main streets and require insurance from the owners. Those license fees could be used in regulating and running safer bike lanes.

In major cities, would be a good idea to install those vertical bike racks...even put a meter on them if it would help to pay for them so that bikers don't have to use newspaper boxes and lampposts to chain them to.

If we, as a society, don't come to some agreements, the carnage will be increased and the fickle fingers of blame will be pointing in all directions as noted in this and other bike/car threads.

Back in the early 60s and before, we only had about 125 million people in the country. We have more than doubled our population since. The roads for the most part have not changed.

Many people will use bikes and probably even more in the foreseeable future. There remains a still-large group that must use cars/trucks. Shopping for most families requires a vehicle that has room for goods and kids and whatever else must be carried. As for winter bike use, difficult at best. Had a friend here in Oregon who inserted screws in his tires and managed to navigate all but the heaviest snowfall.

The best answer remains total redesign of our cities...streets...roadways to accomodate all forms of transport as safely as possible.

Those of you who are still young and mostly(from this thread at least)thinking only of themselves, consider carefully that you are only part of a lifetime away from being old yourselves. Age will change your perspectives considerably.

[Demeter]

44. Thank you. You said it much better than I ever could

The best thing about winter is it gets most bikes off the roads.I cannot emphasize how dangerous it is here. There's no protection in a stripe of white paint for bikes.

[kickysnana]

48. Separate bike paths...

Having ridden in my younger days I much preferred riding on side streets and avoiding motorized traffic. They now have put bike paths on abandoned RR tracks here for commuters.

Hazards on busy street bike paths (where the idiot planners think they should go).

Right turns wiping you out because they could not see you coming.
Car doors wiping you out because they could not see you coming.
Three lane highways (Another idiot idea)cause people to go too far right and wipe you out.
Some people just drive too far right. One got me when I was 12. Luckily my reflexes were great yet and I was able to leap free of the bike and avoid being hit by the car. Bike not so lucky. Asphalt curb too high to "jump" the bike up on it. Middle of the afternoon. The person never stopped probably never knew they hit the bike.

[lfairban]

54. Screws?

Had a friend here in Oregon who inserted screws in his tires and managed to navigate all but the heaviest snowfall.

Please tell your friend about studded bike tires:

http://www.google.com/search?q=studded+bike+OR+bicycle+tires&hl=en&prmd=ivns&source=univ&tbs=shop:1&tbo=u&ei=OdwYTaWYB4Sclge64JH_Cw&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CDsQrQQwAA

You don't really need them for snow or slush, aggressive mountain bike tires should suffice. They are really for ice. If you can only afford one, put it on front.

[lfairban]

53. That depends,

on your definition of "amenable." Here in central Ohio, you see bicyclists all year round, and the weather is not that much milder. As long as they clear the bike pavement when they clear the rest, there should not be much of a problem. Except the cold of course.

[Cutatious]

45. Potential street users and registration / tax fees

Hopefully they will share the tax bill for said streets.

[CreekDog]

46. they do share the tax bill

are you trying to say they don't?

[Cutatious]

55. Not at all

Just saying that the registration fees, inspection fees and all the other expenses that are required to use the roads by vehicles should be also paid by these "new" users if they are not already doing so.

[PavePusher]

59. Since bicycles probably do less than 1/1000 of the damage to roads...

that cars and heavier vehicles do, I'll happily pay a $0.50 registration fee.

Who do I give my 4 bits to?

[U4ikLefty]

58. I'm in transportation & I'm amazed at the ignorance/entitlement

displayed by a couple of jerks on this board. Not surprised...just amazed.

As a professional in this field, I shall comment no further.