Yes, I guess that’s really the only good answer. Just on mountain roads, space might be at a premium, but there are probably alternate routes a bike path could take.
Yes, but with all the construction equipment already there, it’s a fraction of the cost to build it alongside. Also that way you can wildlife protect it along with the highway. A seperate route would be at risk of animals (and need to be wary of migration paths) or need its own protection and animal crossovers.
You have a separate bike pathway/trail that twins the road
For this specific use case, that’s only a viable alternative if the separated bike path is just as wide as the road itself. Normal bike paths designed for cyclists commuting or otherwise transporting themselves can be half the width for a bi-directional cycleway as a single car lane, but for cyclists training in the hills, they need the road width to be able to take corners at speed safely.
Uhh… the pathways have 20/km limit, it’s also for pedestrians, roller bladders, skateboarders etc. and your risking your life going fast in the mountains wildlife can be around any corner. If you’re treating a pathway or trail like a road, you’re an ass.
If you’re road training, than you do it on roads… they don’t need to make a specific trail just for that. Don’t go on a busy road, there’s plenty of less used roads that you can do that on.
And how would you be going fast UPHILL, this is mountainous territory that’s being talked about.
Do you think the only people biking on scenic mountain highways are trainers?
We get plenty of overseas tourists who would be a disaster on the regular roads, it’s also illegal on some roads to cycle as well since it’s so dangerous for everyone.
I think this post clearly shows a picture of a sports cyclist, the post referenced a location with clear advertising aimed at attracting sports cyclists, and the discussion thread above makes it very unambiguously clear that we’re talking about sports cycling. One would have to be completely oblivious or wilfully ignorant to pretend otherwise.
As someone who does both sports cycling and transport cycling, I fucking hate it when people from one side act as though the other side doesn’t exist or is lesser than or not worth considering. The fuckwits who complain about “tour de france wanabees” while claiming to be cycling advocates are no better than NIMBYs complaining about their parking. We’re all on the same side here, and anyone who acts otherwise can fuck off as far as I’m concerned.
Are you seriously suggesting that trails should be built for one particular group of bikers? Where no one else could safely use that trail safely? Not even a pedestrian or a person with disabilities? That’s a great use of resources lol.
The link also talks about all types of cycling.
There’s plenty of roads with almost no traffic that road cyclists can use, why do you think they’re being ignored? They aren’t the problem demographic here.
Like you’re doing in this chain with a post link you’re ignoring that started this whole topic….?
I’ve addressed your concerns, you’re saying these trails need to be road wide, I provided reasons why they don’t need to be. Just because you don’t like the answers doesn’t mean I’m here in bad faith. It just means you have a bias and are the one not wanting to discuss something, you just want to be heard and your view is the only one.
Is this a serious question? You have a separate bike pathway/trail that twins the road.
Like in Banff National Park
Yes, I guess that’s really the only good answer. Just on mountain roads, space might be at a premium, but there are probably alternate routes a bike path could take.
Yes, but with all the construction equipment already there, it’s a fraction of the cost to build it alongside. Also that way you can wildlife protect it along with the highway. A seperate route would be at risk of animals (and need to be wary of migration paths) or need its own protection and animal crossovers.
For this specific use case, that’s only a viable alternative if the separated bike path is just as wide as the road itself. Normal bike paths designed for cyclists commuting or otherwise transporting themselves can be half the width for a bi-directional cycleway as a single car lane, but for cyclists training in the hills, they need the road width to be able to take corners at speed safely.
Uhh… the pathways have 20/km limit, it’s also for pedestrians, roller bladders, skateboarders etc. and your risking your life going fast in the mountains wildlife can be around any corner. If you’re treating a pathway or trail like a road, you’re an ass.
If you’re road training, than you do it on roads… they don’t need to make a specific trail just for that. Don’t go on a busy road, there’s plenty of less used roads that you can do that on.
And how would you be going fast UPHILL, this is mountainous territory that’s being talked about.
Road training is literally what we’re talking about here?
Do you think the only people biking on scenic mountain highways are trainers?
We get plenty of overseas tourists who would be a disaster on the regular roads, it’s also illegal on some roads to cycle as well since it’s so dangerous for everyone.
I think this post clearly shows a picture of a sports cyclist, the post referenced a location with clear advertising aimed at attracting sports cyclists, and the discussion thread above makes it very unambiguously clear that we’re talking about sports cycling. One would have to be completely oblivious or wilfully ignorant to pretend otherwise.
As someone who does both sports cycling and transport cycling, I fucking hate it when people from one side act as though the other side doesn’t exist or is lesser than or not worth considering. The fuckwits who complain about “tour de france wanabees” while claiming to be cycling advocates are no better than NIMBYs complaining about their parking. We’re all on the same side here, and anyone who acts otherwise can fuck off as far as I’m concerned.
Are you seriously suggesting that trails should be built for one particular group of bikers? Where no one else could safely use that trail safely? Not even a pedestrian or a person with disabilities? That’s a great use of resources lol.
The link also talks about all types of cycling.
There’s plenty of roads with almost no traffic that road cyclists can use, why do you think they’re being ignored? They aren’t the problem demographic here.
No. And only an intentionally bad-faith reading of my comment could come away thinking it was.
Like you’re doing in this chain with a post link you’re ignoring that started this whole topic….?
I’ve addressed your concerns, you’re saying these trails need to be road wide, I provided reasons why they don’t need to be. Just because you don’t like the answers doesn’t mean I’m here in bad faith. It just means you have a bias and are the one not wanting to discuss something, you just want to be heard and your view is the only one.