[sustran] Bicycles - Improving the image

[Obwon]

One thing that can be done easily and cheaply to enhance the image of
bicycles most dramatically is for the gov'ts to simply show preference
for them.  

  Firstly, and I've been riding a bicycle in city for many a year,
mandating that cyclists stop for all traffic lights and otherwise
operate in much the same manner as cars or other motorized traffic is of
course ludicrous.

1. Momentum comes to the cyclist at high cost.  If there is no cross
traffic, or pedestrians sufficient to make progress perilous.  One feels
the weight of the rediculousness of continued waiting in light of the
low top speeds that will be achived and the inconvenience of having
needlessly discarded momentum.

2. On uphills matters get worse.  Momentum is even harder to regain, the
hard work needed to get going raises blood pressure again and again. 
Unlike a car which cannot feel these effects, the body responds and
makes cycling just a little less pleasant than it would be if a more
constant speed could be maintained as long as it is possible to do so
safetly.

3. The longer the trip the more lights one encounters and overall travel
time approaches the absurd.  For instance I might ride some 200 city
blocks each of which has a light at the corner.  I can, and have safely
covered the distance in 35 - 45 minutes ignoring lights when it made
good sense to do so.  If I observed traffic lights, which can be as long
as 1.5 minutes on avg. I'd be stopping for 1.5 mins. about every 3 or 4
blocks on level ground and probably every 2 to 3 blocks on uphills.  

  A quick and dirty, casual estimate yields about 90 minutes added to my
trip. And for what?  My methods have served me for over 35 years without
one serious accident, and two minor ones from which all parties walked
away without complaint (except me, I suffered a cut and a bruise.  In
most bicycle accidents, even in encounters with pedestrians, it's the
cyclist who is the most likely to get hurt and sustain injuries.) 

 Yet, we are hounded to 'follow the rules of the road' that are designed
for hard steel, gasoline powered motors.  And by people who have never
even taken a bike out and ridden in traffic for any appreciable distance
or time. If you want better rules of the road for bikers and hpv's you
must first have the people who will make the laws get out and ride under
local conditions and not ride their comfortable leather office chairs
into a 'fray' the mechanicx of which they don't have even a clue.

  Laws that give bikers preference on the road would do much to
encourage and elevate biking.  Realizing that the one who will expend
the least effort when stoping and starting is required is the person
driving the auto, means that one should reasonably give the biker the
right of way.  Doesn't it make sense to give preference to the machine
powered by a heart, blood pressure and muscle over the one using oil,
gasoline and metal? No reasonable person can even make a comparison
between the two, how can they be reasonably be held to the exact same
rules?  

  History has shown me that it is more than just reasonable two have
people operating in the same space by two different sets of rules.  It's
not just possible its an actual reality that happens all the time.  Just
as there are major differences in rules of the road between the
different types of vehicles, so too there should be consideration made
for the handicaps/advantages of bikes.  

   (the short answer lol!)
   Obwon