Sierra Club -- cycling is scary - Page 16 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

01-10-2005, 10:36 AM

Bill Baka wrote:

> Terry Morse wrote:
>
>> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I've ridded I-80 up in the Sierras, between the Nevada City exit and
>>> some point east of that, where there was no alternate road, but IIRC,
>>> there were signs prohibiting it.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Krebs Cycle map shows I-80 is fine for bicycles eastbound from
>> Gold Run, until you reach Donner Pass Road. There you must exit. It's
>> a much better road for cycling than I-80, any way.
>
>
> I am betting that with all the freeways in California and the traffic on
> them that the actual percentage where bicycles are allowed is closer to
> 1% than 25%.
> Bill Baka

It's 25%. 4000 miles of freeway, 1000 of them open to cyclists.

See [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

And see [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

01-10-2005, 10:36 AM

Bill Baka wrote:

> Terry Morse wrote:
>
>> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I've ridded I-80 up in the Sierras, between the Nevada City exit and
>>> some point east of that, where there was no alternate road, but IIRC,
>>> there were signs prohibiting it.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Krebs Cycle map shows I-80 is fine for bicycles eastbound from
>> Gold Run, until you reach Donner Pass Road. There you must exit. It's
>> a much better road for cycling than I-80, any way.
>
>
> I am betting that with all the freeways in California and the traffic on
> them that the actual percentage where bicycles are allowed is closer to
> 1% than 25%.
> Bill Baka

It's 25%. 4000 miles of freeway, 1000 of them open to cyclists.

See [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

And see [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

01-10-2005, 10:36 AM

Bill Baka wrote:

> Terry Morse wrote:
>
>> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I've ridded I-80 up in the Sierras, between the Nevada City exit and
>>> some point east of that, where there was no alternate road, but IIRC,
>>> there were signs prohibiting it.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Krebs Cycle map shows I-80 is fine for bicycles eastbound from
>> Gold Run, until you reach Donner Pass Road. There you must exit. It's
>> a much better road for cycling than I-80, any way.
>
>
> I am betting that with all the freeways in California and the traffic on
> them that the actual percentage where bicycles are allowed is closer to
> 1% than 25%.
> Bill Baka

It's 25%. 4000 miles of freeway, 1000 of them open to cyclists.

See [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

And see [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

01-10-2005, 02:10 PM

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>> Terry Morse wrote:
>>
>>> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I've ridded I-80 up in the Sierras, between the Nevada City exit and
>>>> some point east of that, where there was no alternate road, but
>>>> IIRC, there were signs prohibiting it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Krebs Cycle map shows I-80 is fine for bicycles eastbound from
>>> Gold Run, until you reach Donner Pass Road. There you must exit. It's
>>> a much better road for cycling than I-80, any way.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am betting that with all the freeways in California and the traffic
>> on them that the actual percentage where bicycles are allowed is
>> closer to 1% than 25%.
>> Bill Baka
>
>
> It's 25%. 4000 miles of freeway, 1000 of them open to cyclists.
>
> See [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
>
> And see [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
I went to the sites and saw that about 1000 miles were open to cyclists
but I would not go on some of them without my own personal SAG wagon
(wife) and that would not be easy. Also since I have driven almost all
freeways in California and some highways misnamed as freeways, I would
bet that 25% of the roads are the least maintained, unless California
has gone on a road rebuilding binge. I will admit to a mistake in
judgment, mine and California's, but some of those roads I wouldn't
drive even in one of my more aggressive moods. If the law says it is so,
then so be it. I just have visions of getting creamed somewhere that is
so far out you wind up as road paste before someone figures out that was
a human and not a deer that was hit.
You guys win, but I will stick to the mountain bike for my thrills and
avoid those cars and trucks doing 80 in a 65 because there are not
enough police to patrol.
I was rr,rrr, wrong.
Bill Baka

01-10-2005, 02:10 PM

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>> Terry Morse wrote:
>>
>>> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I've ridded I-80 up in the Sierras, between the Nevada City exit and
>>>> some point east of that, where there was no alternate road, but
>>>> IIRC, there were signs prohibiting it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Krebs Cycle map shows I-80 is fine for bicycles eastbound from
>>> Gold Run, until you reach Donner Pass Road. There you must exit. It's
>>> a much better road for cycling than I-80, any way.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am betting that with all the freeways in California and the traffic
>> on them that the actual percentage where bicycles are allowed is
>> closer to 1% than 25%.
>> Bill Baka
>
>
> It's 25%. 4000 miles of freeway, 1000 of them open to cyclists.
>
> See [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
>
> And see [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
I went to the sites and saw that about 1000 miles were open to cyclists
but I would not go on some of them without my own personal SAG wagon
(wife) and that would not be easy. Also since I have driven almost all
freeways in California and some highways misnamed as freeways, I would
bet that 25% of the roads are the least maintained, unless California
has gone on a road rebuilding binge. I will admit to a mistake in
judgment, mine and California's, but some of those roads I wouldn't
drive even in one of my more aggressive moods. If the law says it is so,
then so be it. I just have visions of getting creamed somewhere that is
so far out you wind up as road paste before someone figures out that was
a human and not a deer that was hit.
You guys win, but I will stick to the mountain bike for my thrills and
avoid those cars and trucks doing 80 in a 65 because there are not
enough police to patrol.
I was rr,rrr, wrong.
Bill Baka

01-10-2005, 02:10 PM

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>> Terry Morse wrote:
>>
>>> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I've ridded I-80 up in the Sierras, between the Nevada City exit and
>>>> some point east of that, where there was no alternate road, but
>>>> IIRC, there were signs prohibiting it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Krebs Cycle map shows I-80 is fine for bicycles eastbound from
>>> Gold Run, until you reach Donner Pass Road. There you must exit. It's
>>> a much better road for cycling than I-80, any way.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am betting that with all the freeways in California and the traffic
>> on them that the actual percentage where bicycles are allowed is
>> closer to 1% than 25%.
>> Bill Baka
>
>
> It's 25%. 4000 miles of freeway, 1000 of them open to cyclists.
>
> See [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
>
> And see [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
I went to the sites and saw that about 1000 miles were open to cyclists
but I would not go on some of them without my own personal SAG wagon
(wife) and that would not be easy. Also since I have driven almost all
freeways in California and some highways misnamed as freeways, I would
bet that 25% of the roads are the least maintained, unless California
has gone on a road rebuilding binge. I will admit to a mistake in
judgment, mine and California's, but some of those roads I wouldn't
drive even in one of my more aggressive moods. If the law says it is so,
then so be it. I just have visions of getting creamed somewhere that is
so far out you wind up as road paste before someone figures out that was
a human and not a deer that was hit.
You guys win, but I will stick to the mountain bike for my thrills and
avoid those cars and trucks doing 80 in a 65 because there are not
enough police to patrol.
I was rr,rrr, wrong.
Bill Baka

01-10-2005, 07:35 PM

> If the law says it is so
> then so be it. I just have visions of getting creamed somewhere tha
> i
> so far out you wind up as road paste before someone figures out tha
> wa
> a human and not a deer that was hit
> You guys win, but I will stick to the mountain bike for my thrills an
> avoid those cars and trucks doing 80 in a 65 because there are no
> enough police to patrol
> I was rr,rrr, wrong
> Bill Baka
It is legal as needed, but I fully agree on it not always being th
wise option. I do agree also with the idea that the number of accident
would be lower on a highway than elsewhere, due to the fact that th
high speed drivers are in thier line and vary little. The shoulders ar
indeed huge, so long as there aren't any re-treads and glass in them.
To be hit at such velocity would certainly be fatal, but the risk
thing is far greater where we all ride, normal roads. The roads tha
have little or no shoulder, and curve in all manners not conducive t
sight.
AKA, what I commute on. 35mph speed limit, but no safer in my view

--
Conniebiker

01-10-2005, 07:35 PM

> If the law says it is so
> then so be it. I just have visions of getting creamed somewhere tha
> i
> so far out you wind up as road paste before someone figures out tha
> wa
> a human and not a deer that was hit
> You guys win, but I will stick to the mountain bike for my thrills an
> avoid those cars and trucks doing 80 in a 65 because there are no
> enough police to patrol
> I was rr,rrr, wrong
> Bill Baka
It is legal as needed, but I fully agree on it not always being th
wise option. I do agree also with the idea that the number of accident
would be lower on a highway than elsewhere, due to the fact that th
high speed drivers are in thier line and vary little. The shoulders ar
indeed huge, so long as there aren't any re-treads and glass in them.
To be hit at such velocity would certainly be fatal, but the risk
thing is far greater where we all ride, normal roads. The roads tha
have little or no shoulder, and curve in all manners not conducive t
sight.
AKA, what I commute on. 35mph speed limit, but no safer in my view

--
Conniebiker

01-10-2005, 07:35 PM

> If the law says it is so
> then so be it. I just have visions of getting creamed somewhere tha
> i
> so far out you wind up as road paste before someone figures out tha
> wa
> a human and not a deer that was hit
> You guys win, but I will stick to the mountain bike for my thrills an
> avoid those cars and trucks doing 80 in a 65 because there are no
> enough police to patrol
> I was rr,rrr, wrong
> Bill Baka
It is legal as needed, but I fully agree on it not always being th
wise option. I do agree also with the idea that the number of accident
would be lower on a highway than elsewhere, due to the fact that th
high speed drivers are in thier line and vary little. The shoulders ar
indeed huge, so long as there aren't any re-treads and glass in them.
To be hit at such velocity would certainly be fatal, but the risk
thing is far greater where we all ride, normal roads. The roads tha
have little or no shoulder, and curve in all manners not conducive t
sight.
AKA, what I commute on. 35mph speed limit, but no safer in my view

--
Conniebiker

01-11-2005, 06:59 AM

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 22:01:53 -0700, Mark Hickey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>dgk <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>I once, when young and foolish, hitched along an interstate. The wind
>>caused by passing trucks could blow a biker right off the shoulder.
>>You really have to be nuts, or drunk, to try that.
>
>It probably feels worse at walking speed. I had a permit to ride the
>interstates (not all of 'em though...) in New Jersey, and used to do
>regular rides on I-195. Since it's NJ, the speed limit was 55mph
>(yawn) and it was heavily patrolled, so most cars and trucks weren't
>doing much above that... but it really wasn't an issue at all -
>certainly much less of a problem than a "normal road" where a truck
>might pass you doing 45mph MUCH closer.
>
>I'd say that riding the interstate highways with their enormous
>shoulder lanes and the long, long line of sight would be far less
>dangerous than a "normal road". You just have to pay attention at the
>exit/entrance ramps.
>
>Mark Hickey
>Habanero Cycles
>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>Home of the $695 ti frame

I was out of town so didn't get to read this thread until today. Yup,
my ignorance of interstate roads. I guess they are a good way of
riding. There was another post about using them as the only way to get
from town to town in some areas. Perhaps someday I'll get to ride on
one.