Better Know a Proposition: Prop. One

It's not about parking spaces. And I already said that if I had to choose one, I would vote for Prop. 1. It's the undertones of the proposition which scare me, including maintaince of red-light cameras, and the omission of road maintance on Oltorf aka the Shittiest Street in Austin as well as West Campus area, although I do not live there.

When I ride, I ride on the sidewalk a majority of the time. Albeit I have a mountain bike which can handle the terrain. The reason I do so is because I get pissed at bikers in front of me when I'm driving. If you don't get upset at bikers in the street then I guess you have nothing to worry about.

Stew,

I could ride my bike, or I could drive my car. Would you prefer the extra parking space or would you like to walk a little further?

Seth

Shouldn't our tax dollars already being going towards these things? The things that this bond would finance are all great stuff, but should have been budgeted in to city's general infrastructure funds. It's ridiculous that everyone is essentially forced to vote for this bond, if they don't want the roads, bikelanes, sidewalks and drainage systems to go to shit. That should be a given with tax money the city already receives. It's a sad state of affairs that our current tax dollars are so misappropriated that this bond is even necessary.

Stew,

Bite me. There will never be enough bike lanes to cover the city; and riding on the sidewalk is incredibly dangerous (every single driveway becomes an intersection where cars do not expect anything faster than pedestrians).

Stew, if that bike is impeding traffic then it must not be during rush hour because bikes move faster than cars at that time in this town. And if it is during the day, then it's only holfing you up for probably a combined total of 15-20 seconds longer than it would have taken to get to where you were going in the first place. please, all of this imepding traffic talk is ridiculous. if you're a driver that can't wait 15-20 seconds to have a chance to apss a bike then you have more problems that just a bike in your lane.

No shit, you didn't catch the sarcasm Tarvin.

But upon further review of the bike law website, it only lists 11 streets in which bikers are not able to ride on the sidewalk. That leaves hundreds of other sidewalks around town which are fit to ride. If there is a bike lane by all means ride it. But if there is no bike lane or shoulder then either pick up the pace to 30-45 mph or get on the damn sidewalk.

Don't get me wrong, I am pro-biker. I don't believe anyone should have the right to decide to make un-helmeted bicycle riding illegal (including the public or city). What it comes down to is the impediment of traffic. If a bike on Lamar is in a lane and is going 10-15 mph then traffic must adjust to that one biker. Pretty lame.

Stewy,

I'm pretty sure it's illegal for bicycles to ride on Mo-Pac. And IH 35 and 183.

Tarvin,

You can start by riding your bike on MoPac.

Stewy,

It's a sidewalk, not a sideride.

And I'll ride damn well anywhere it's legal.

I have the right to ride in the streets I pay for and I damn well will. Try and stop me.

stew-
It's illegal to ride a bike on many sidewalks. For instance, it's banned on the 'drag' section of Guadalupe.

http://bicycleaustin.info/laws/austin.html

Seth

Go Cynthia!

By all means keep riding your bikes...on the sidewalk. No to bikes in car lanes, yes to bikes in bike lanes. I wonder if Jennifer Kim is going to push through her "red-light camera" proposal with the funds we give the city council included in Prop. 1? It does call for "traffic signal system enhancements" and "vehicle detectors", hmmm. VOTE NO FOR ALL PROPS!

Gotta luv this bike haters. I guess walking isn't a form of transportation either? We have sidewalks all over don't we? I wonder why they segregated walkers and cars? Hmmmm.....

I like bikes.

The "street reconstruction" items should, this time around, be subject to the rule Tommy Eden and I got through the UTC and then through the City Council a few years back which required completing sidewalks (and bikeways) if total added cost was less than 20%. Keep your eyes open on this one.

Cynthia, buzz the fuck off. You managed to take a real good point about deferred maintenance and totally discredit it by shooting your uninformed mouth off about bicycles. Sterling work.

Cynthia, I have'nt filled up my gas tank in almost three months thanks to my bicycle...

Wow. "Bicycles are a form of recreation, not a form of transportation."

Cynthia, are you for real? What *are* acceptable forms of transportation, then? Motorized vehicles...and nothing else?

Then I assume you're opposed to bike racks on busses, bike lanes on streets used frequently by commuters (Shoal Creek & Jollyville come to mind), bike racks at the Cap Metro Park & Rides, and so on?

I'm speechless.

Cynthia, I have to take exception to the statement that bicycles aren't a form of transportation. I manage to get between my home and work, 4 1/2 miles apart, on my bike, every day. Riding my bicycle to work takes less time than the bus and, if I happen to be riding at rush hour, less time than driving a car.

I'm a courteous rider, and I don't think that you can cite an example of my riding impeding the flow of traffic. In fact, during rush hour, cars that are backed up bumper-to-bumper and that don't quite know where the center of the lane is impede how quickly I can move as a cyclist by restricting access to bike lanes. The absence of bike lanes makes about as much sense as having a multi-lane highway without lane markers. Sure, you can still drive on it, but drivers will be uncomfortable and unclear about lane boundaries and make bad driving decisions in both cases.

If we have separate lanes (or routes) for bikes, then bicycles need not impede the flow of traffic. Sure, faster vehicles have to slow down for slower vehicles, but if we can segregate vehicles by speeds, there's no reason that bikes can't be part of the solution.

Cynthia has a point about using bond money for maintenance but she's dead wrong about bicycles.

My bicycle use is not recreation, unless you consider riding to and from work to be recreation.

Deferred maintenance should be paid for out of general funds, not financed through general obligation bonds. I am surprised such a practice is permitted under Texas Law. This practice can’t enhance the city’s bond rating.

Bicycles are a form of recreation, not a form of transportation. In fact they impede the flow of traffic. I am opposed to using any public money for bicycle improvements other than for recreational purposes.

thanks for this feature, makes it easier to figure out what in the world is going on.