Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by garrett on November 4, 2010 at 5:39am

I get real annoyed with the "wave ahead after you stop" situation. I have found that if I do not make eye contact the drivers will behave normally. I do this for stop signs tho, and do not have much experience with the path to road problem.

In this situation i would rely on timing as you have in the past, maybe i should re think that, glad you are alright

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by millenial removing Bernie tattoo on November 4, 2010 at 5:45am

I would ride on the road. Yeah, yeah out in the burbs it might be a high speed road, narrow lane, no shoulder, no other way to get to work etc. but I really hate glorified-sidewalk "bike paths". Intersections are a mess and unless you cross them as a pedestrian, then you're always taking a risk.

Btw, what village is this?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Guico on November 4, 2010 at 6:00am

This is in Carol Stream. For a really specific location, click here.

I'm fine with the path, because 99.5% of the time I don't have any problems and feel safer, which is important to me, and to anyone who wants to consider taking a bike to go from point A to B. This type of turning situation happens very, very rarely. I might just have to yield to right turners but not to left-turners, which is an odd rule.


envane x said:

I would ride on the road. Yeah, yeah out in the burbs it might be a high speed road, narrow lane, no shoulder, no other way to get to work etc. but I really hate glorified-sidewalk "bike paths". Intersections are a mess and unless you cross them as a pedestrian, then you're always taking a risk.

Btw, what village is this?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Guico on November 4, 2010 at 7:32am

I wouldn't say it's terrible; for that description, I reserve this piece of work in my old hometown. (I just counted--16 bike-vehicle conflict points in 1,500 feet!)

By contrast, this sidepath actually follows the recommended guidelines for spacing, with 17 in 2.7 miles. (the recommended maximum for conflicts on a sidepath is something like 4-8 per mile).

I think it hasn't helped that path use (peds and bikes) out here really dries up by the end of September. I had a near-miss in Bartlett a couple weeks ago, and I think in general drivers look for other users even less now than they did in midsummer.


Cameron Puetz said:

That path looks absolutely terrible; I can’t imagine ridding on a side path with that many cross streets and driveways. That’s exactly the kind of path a motorist would give to a cyclist and then wonder why no one uses it. A few years ago I was in crash on a similar path where a driver making a right on red hit me as I proceeded straight through the intersection on a green. Ever since then I’ve been sort of gun shy about such paths even though riding in city traffic or on rural highways doesn’t phase me. I’m with evane x, and would probably ride in the road.


Robert Guico said:

This is in Carol Stream. For a really specific location, click here.

I'm fine with the path, because 99.5% of the time I don't have any problems and feel safer, which is important to me, and to anyone who wants to consider taking a bike to go from point A to B. This type of turning situation happens very, very rarely. I might just have to yield to right turners but not to left-turners, which is an odd rule.


envane x said:

I would ride on the road. Yeah, yeah out in the burbs it might be a high speed road, narrow lane, no shoulder, no other way to get to work etc. but I really hate glorified-sidewalk "bike paths". Intersections are a mess and unless you cross them as a pedestrian, then you're always taking a risk.

Btw, what village is this?

• ▶ Reply