I am going to take issue with this point, Russ. Cars should not drive so fast on rural roads that they run the risk of hitting cyclists--any more than they should drive so fast that they run the risk of hitting deer, cows, dogs, hay bales, tractors, and other likely and slow moving things on rural roads. That is unsafe driving for the conditions. Cyclists have the legal right to use any road that is not prohibited to them (think freeways) and should be encouraged to do so. The more people we get on bicycles, the better our carbon footprint is, the fewer people we have in cars creating traffic jams, etc. This is a particular issue when cyclists are NOT legally allowed to use major freeways---and then people in cars don't want them on rural roads either. Doesn't make sense.rlown wrote:I'm a little sensitive to cyclists being in the wrong place, now that vehicles have the 3' rule. I see many non-locals up here riding two-lane rural roads with no shoulders in unincorporated areas. It's flat out dangerous to both. We have at least 1 cyclist killed a month in Sonoma County by vehicle collision, esp in Spring and Summer. If the cyclists want bike lanes, fund them; If not, then cyclists shouldn't be on a dangerous road, especially with a 1 Ton hauling cattle to and fro their ranches.
Cyclists DO pay taxes, just like everyone else. And some of those taxes should be used to fund cycling friendly options. Current federal guidelines prohibit the use of federal funds for any transportation project that does not include consideration for both cyclist and pedestrians. For too long we have built our roads and our communities for the convenience of cars. We need to start building or roads and communities for the convenience of people, instead.
End of rant.