When I was in Squirrel Hill the "bike path" was the painted line with the "lovely decal" that ran along Beechwood Blvd... it was a joke.
More often than not it was filled with parked cars that needed to be navigated around by driving into the street with traffic. Approaching the major intersections was a hair raising, life threatening experience as drives inevitably used the bike lane as their private right turn on red lane while bikes were in it. They'd do it right if front of the cops sitting in their patrol cars knowing nothing would be done.
If you're looking for additional revenue start demanding that the city police issue citations to drivers who enter the bike lane while it's occupied as they are supposed to be doing and you'll be awash in cash.
As far as traffic regulations. I would suggest you join the following Friday WPW afternoon ride:
http://www.google.com/calendar/e...merica/
New_York
it would be nice if bikes had to follow the traffic regulations and not make their own lanes between stopped vehicles and parked cars
"we expect that Pittsburgh will soon be known around the country as the most bike and pedestrian friendly community in the America"
Considering our topography, I don't think we will ever be known as the MOST bike friendly community in America.
Another goal of the announced plan is to create more dedicated bike paths so we can get more people to commute via bikes. Sharing the road with automobiles, in my opinion, is not the answer. What we would need is to create a continuous bike path loop that connects the southside, jail trail, the point, the strip, to the east end. Half of the loop already exists. Additional connectors to the Allegheny Passage trail and other suburban trails will be considered.
We are working on some related bike transit solutions over at the cityLive! transit plan wiki, which Brian O'Neil wrote about in today's PG.
I am not the world's best driver. Bikers terrify me. I will probably cause a fender bender one day when I suddenly slow down to 5 mph because a biker suddenly shows up in front of me and I just almost stop driving. Am I the only one who is terrified?
Whenever I bike in public, I ride on the sidewalks. Can't we make sidewalks more biker friendly and legal? What's wrong with sidewalks?
Seriously. Sidewalks are not where cars drive but they still go the same way as roads... isn't that the same thing as a bike lane?
Just a thought from a worried driver.
The answer is dedicated bike paths like the ones we have along the Mon and Allegheny Rivers. If we asked cyclists to ride on the sidewalks then you start to endanger pedestrians. I don't think the mayor gets this when he says that he wants to explore adding more bike lanes to the roads. Bike lanes are okay if you're super-psycho-bike guy like Lance Armstrong but there isn't a chance in hell of me sharing the roads with some of the drivers here.
What surprises me is that this is the second essentially *anti* bike post I have seen today. John McIntire called bicyclists reckless bastards. And Bram here says that 100% of bicyclists break the law everyday. Well, follow a car long enough and you will see it glide through a stop sign or roll into a right turn on red.
I think unless you are going for a very slow ride, sidewalks are not going to work as bike lanes, especially around here. All those trees have roots that push sidewalks up, putting sharp edges of concrete in your path. Plus clueless pedestrians wearing ipods (reckless bastards, walking all over the sidewalk). I think that the more bicyclists get out on the road, the better things will be (fewer drivers who are more used to bicyclists).
For the record does anybody know definitively weather riding a bike on city sidewalks is legal or not?
Bicycles travel too quickly for sidewalks to be a reasonable answer. On trips of up to four or five miles, even most casual cyclists can make the trip in about the same amount of time as a car (assuming city streets).
Hostility toward cyclists is not a profitable avenue of discussion, and spouting bile because they occasionally treat traffic regulations casually ignores the reality of city cycling: for example, it is often safer for a cyclist to travel through a red light rather than risk being cut off by a car that didn't bother to look for cyclists. The more visible cyclists can be, the safer they are. And while that may frustrate drivers who are going more slowly, cyclists should do what it takes to get noticed - and not get hit.
Regarding Pittsburgh's topography, there are certainly ways to get around the city without going up the biggest hills. There are also infrastructure changes that enable cyclists to get up hills more easily. Trondheim, Norway actually has a key-operated bike lift, and Ithaca, NY has looked into installing one of its own.
That said, I am incredulous that people would profess to be anti-cyclist. They reduce traffic and pollution - which seem like pretty unilaterally positive things to me.
How does down blocking one lane of Forbes avenue during rush hour "reduce traffic."
Ouch! I didn't quite mean for this to be an "anti-bike" post; and I'm not "hostile" to the extent that I don't holler at them, cut them off or give them single-digit salutes. Still I think the cycling constituency could make more headway changing the culture in the long term if they took some visible efforts to reign their behavior in. Courtesy is a two-way street (so to speak).
Section 3508. Pedalcycles on sidewalks and pedalcycle paths.
(a) Right-of-way to pedestrians.-- A person riding a pedalcycle upon a sidewalk or pedalcycle
path used by pedestrians shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give an audible
signal before overtaking and passing a pedestrian.
(b) Business districts.-- A person shall not ride a pedalcycle upon a sidewalk in a business
district unless permitted by official traffic-control devices, nor when a usable pedalcycle-only lane
has been provided adjacent to the sidewalk.
That jibes with my memory of the laws for bicycles. I used to have a whistle like a track coach, but drooling on myself while I rode was unpleasant, while letting it dangle (so to speak) meant it wasn't available when I needed it. I have a bell on my folding bike, but I need to get one for my hybrid (commuting bike).
Bram, I think you'll find most bicycle commuters obey most laws and certainly try not to take chances. I will say that, based on watching them, the Critical Mass people give the commuters a bad name. They actually have people who sit and block traffic while the "mass" meanders through stop lights (green *or* red). That doesn't seem like the way to get bicyclists noticed in a positive light.
Ed, I have to disagree. For what ever reason right or wrong rarely if ever do cyclists for instance sit through a red light at an intersection. They look to find a break in traffic, and they go through is it dangerous? Not really, but do they follow traffic laws? No. Next time you are stopped at say, Bayard and N. Craig count how many cars stop for the light and then go through while the light is still red but there is a pause in the traffic. Now count how many bicycles go through. Not a major deal but still few cyclists that I see follow the rules of the road. Also would like to say that this pecking order follows on through between pedestrians and cyclists. Many many times i have been run over or nearly run over by indignant cyclists on sidewalks all over this city while jogging, waling or pushing a stroller. I completely understand their fear of riding in the street but still, the rules of the road do not apply on a sidewalk. It is not a share the road deal cyclists have to yield. I think a little education for cyclists on the issues mentioned above would also go a long way.
All of the people who are complaining that cyclists don't follow all the laws and are reckless etc... try it yourself.
Cars treat cyclists without the respect they are entitled to. They pass when they shouldn't, they tailgate, and they cut them off at right turns.
Just got back from a European city where everybody rides bikes. Its about 500 years older than the Burgh, too. The streets are pretty narrow, too. And still, it works, and works really well. The reason it works is there are a fraction of the number of cars. Most people don't drive.
Cars and the drivers of cars are the problem.
Let he who hath never jaywalked cast the first stone.
seriously, the laws, street design, etc were designed for cars. some communities, like the state of idaho and now (potentially) San Francisco have changed the laws to reflect how cyclists tend to behave, with the idea that they will be a bit more predictable. for instance, these laws state that cyclists can treat stop signs as cars treat yield signs, and red lights are to be treated like cars treat stop signs, pretty much how even the most responsible cyclists use the road. the difference between a cyclist running a red and a car is very different as the cyclist will only hurt her/himself whereas cars kill.
Look it, I'm not saying that:
a.) I'm anti-bike
b.) Bike lanes are a bad idea
c.) that bicyclists don't follow rules.
What I am trying to say is this:
a.) I'm terrified of hitting a biker. I respect bikers. I just don't want to cause an accident. Thus bike lanes make sense. Unfortunately, I've noticed that many of these lanes have become another parking space.
b.) I've tried biking in the roads and it terrifies me as a bicyclist so I've resorted to sidewalks which didn't seem like such a bad idea.
Yes, many sidewalks are in terrible shape (try going from wilkinsburg to East Liberty/Highland Park, for instance).
I was just wondering why sidewalks were illegal. At least that was what I was told. I never looked it up, so thank you to the person who did.
Well, I will confess I occasionally jump the light at Negley and Friendship, because at the next light (Negley and Baum) I have to be in the left lane to go straight or cars/SUV's will run me over, as they move from left to right to use the right turn only lane. Unless they ignore the right turn only lane and kill me as they go straight and I go right to negotiate the next set of traffic restrictions.
Bicycle commuters use the same roads the same times each day. So they have an interest in co-existing with the cars that travel those roads. I stay off the sidewalks except for one stretch of Negley where there are no parked cars and two lanes of traffic. As pma says, I am very aware that I will be the loser in a collision with a car. I wouldn't go as far as Mike in saying the cars and drivers are a/the problem, but I will say I would like to see the same level of gas tax here as they have in Europe (with all revenue distributed back to drivers and truckers, so they are just discouraged from driving, not actually hurt). If you really want to reduce American dependence on foreign oil, get the bike out of your basement.
I'm not sure what the city code is for sidewalks what I posted earlier was Pennsylvania code. It could very well be that it is illegal in the city
"I've noticed that many of these lanes have become another parking space. "
that's a good point, agent ska. it's a shame that cycling infrastructure doesn't receive anywhere near the same level of detail or even a fraction of the funding that engineering for auto-only design projects do. hell, just look at how much the blvd of the allies bridge replacement thingy got. remember, this is money that is being allocated to projects that only people with automobiles can use/benefit from. kind of interesting when you consider that according to US Census data, in 2006 (most recent data), 14.7% of Pittsburgh workers had no car available to them. that's 8th in the country, just a hair under chicago. now considering that the top 8 (aside from baltimore) are huge cities with incredible transit, i'm inclined to think that pittsburgh is so high on this list because we have a decent transit, but we're also poor as hell. shouldn't we be investing a bit more into ways that that they can get around safely without using a car? now would ticketing cyclists really add revenue to the city? c'mon bram, in one day the police can sit at the corner of forbes and craig, one of the most pedestrian heavy intersections in the city, and pull over all the cars running the red light (which is pretty much every cycle of the light) and seriously increase the city coffers
Thanks for the link to the transit planning wiki Schultz. I'm on your wavelength on this one. Sharing the road with cars is not the answer, and according to planning studies on the subject, only a very small percentage of bikers actually get out on the road and pretend they're a car. For the rest of us dedicated bikers who commute and ride for pleasure, bike-only paths connecting neighborhoods to employment centers and recreation are the way to go.
"If you really want to reduce American dependence on foreign oil, get the bike out of your basement."
Ed - if you want more Americans to dust off their bikes then I think dedicated bike paths are the answer. Like I said before, not everyone, including me, has enough confidence in drivers to get out and ride their bike along the cars on busy streets.
What would be the rationale for not doing someing with the east busway for bikes. I know you could not share the road itself with buses (liability) but man laying a path on wither side of the bus lane would nto seems to be such a big deal I am sure the county owns the swath of land on either side of the bus lane. That would be the way to go right into downtown you could then connect fairly easily with a lane through point state park to the jail trail and have basically ring a huge chunk of the city for bikes.
dedicated bike paths only? we still need to get people to the paths, via the city streets by bike! and what happens if it snows, what are cyclists supposed to do, then? you think that these dedicated paths will be anywhere near the top of the list for salt and plow? i love the jail trail, but i can't use it for at least a week after it snows, not to mention that it isn't lit up at night. and in the winter, night means 6pm. dedicated bike paths are great, but are not the answer, and should be thought of as part of the whole network. look at the city with the highest percentage of folks riding, portland oregon. the cyclists there for the most part, share the road with cars, it's just that the streets are better designed to include all potential users. , whether they are driving, biking, in a wheelchair, or walking. you do not need to be a "lance armstrong type" to share the road with cars. have you looked around? every day i see people of all ages and abilities sharing the road...when they feel safe to do so. paint and re-engineering are cheap. buying up properties and getting easements are expensive, and a great way to make ememies. i'm not saying that this shouldn't be pursued, but lets take a look at best practices in other cities first and come up with some practical (and cheap) solutions. i would love to see bike paths everywhere. i'd also like to see a bike only tunnel through mount washington, and the hill district, but that ain't gonna happen any time soon, especially at the snail's pace this city moves in.
dedicated bike paths only? we still need to get people to the paths, via the city streets by bike! and what happens if it snows, what are cyclists supposed to do, then? you think that these dedicated paths will be anywhere near the top of the list for salt and plow? i love the jail trail, but i can't use it for at least a week after it snows, not to mention that it isn't lit up at night. and in the winter, night means 6pm. dedicated bike paths are great, but are not the answer, and should be thought of as part of the whole network. look at the city with the highest percentage of folks riding, portland oregon. the cyclists there for the most part, share the road with cars, it's just that the streets are better designed to include all potential users. , whether they are driving, biking, in a wheelchair, or walking. you do not need to be a "lance armstrong type" to share the road with cars. have you looked around? every day i see people of all ages and abilities sharing the road...when they feel safe to do so. paint and re-engineering are cheap. buying up properties and getting easements are expensive, and a great way to make ememies. i'm not saying that this shouldn't be pursued, but lets take a look at best practices in other cities first and come up with some practical (and cheap) solutions. i would love to see bike paths everywhere. i'd also like to see a bike only tunnel through mount washington, and the hill district, but that ain't gonna happen any time soon, especially at the snail's pace this city moves in.
I just spend 6 hours on a bike along the streets of Beijing (today). The thing to do is NOT widen the streets. Rather -- make the bike lane and keep the width the same.
There are millions -- if not billions of things that can be done in Pittsburgh with bikes. And, it will save trillions of dollars as well.
I have not been in a car in a week. And, my 2 boys and wife are flowing along on the bikes with me on every journey. Photos and more insights in due time -- (September).
Go Phelps and Team USA.
Bike-only tunnel through the hill district? Why not just ride over Centre much less traffic
"Bike-only tunnel through the hill district? Why not just ride over Centre much less traffic"
i was being a bit facetious. you know pointing out my pipe dream.
"dedicated bike paths only?"
No, not only dedicated bike paths, because like you said you need to connect the neighborhoods to the bike paths. Some on the road riding will be necessary but hopefully only as a bridge from the neighborhood streets to the bike paths. The Lance Armstrong comment was in reference to those cyclists who have no problem sharing the roads while cars whiz by them. On a busy street in the city I'm not willing to take that chance.
I've seen this said before about cyclists blowing through red lights. In reality, I think this is a straw man argument of drivers who are actually just annoyed at being stuck at a light. Let me ask you this, Bram: would you actually prefer a cyclist to sit in front of your car at a light, waiting just like cars do, and then, once the light turns green, taking a laborious moment to start pedaling, all the while you wait in frustration to be able to go the faster speed a car can go?
I've done this, and I find it ridiculous for all involved. So often, on my bike, with the greater visibility I have and the far less impact a bike has on violating any traffic rules, I will go through a red light if I see the way is clear, get a head of the cars behind me and off to the side so they can better pass.
Am I disregarding traffic laws? Probably. Am a following common sense that best allows everyone to get where they need to go? I think so.
It's too easy for the car-bound to raise this issue of renegade cyclists ignoring the rules of the road when the rules of the road were designed and written only for cars and other automotive traffic.
419.11 PROHIBITING SKATEBOARDS, ROLLER SKATES, SKOOTERS AND BICYCLES ON SIDEWALKS IN BUSINESS DISTRICTS.
(a) Limitations. No person shall be permitted to ride a skateboard, roller skates, skooter or bicycle on the sidewalks of any business district within the city.
(b) Violation and penalty. Any person violating any provision of this section shall be fined twenty-five dollars ($25.00) plus costs.
§ 473.03 TRAFFIC
(e) Bicycles confined to roads. No person in a park shall ride a bicycle on other than a paved vehicular road, or path designated for that purpose. A bicyclist is permitted to wheel or push a bicycle by hand over any grassy area or wooded trail or on any paved area reserved for pedestrian use
Well thats great, if you think you are not having an impact, then you do not have to follow a law. That's awsome I do not think that the act of me not paying my city income taxes will have a big impact on the city budget. Man ,I am not paying! illegal? yes, is it common sense? absolutely! It is not being stuck in traffic that ticks people(read drivers) off, it is the fact that you think you are above the law(becuase you know better) while all the time complaining about the infractions of everybody else. If you do not think it is a good law(and maybe it isn't), than work to get it changed(like they did in London) But until then, do yourself and other cyclists a favor and follow the rules please.
pierogie kid, do you jaywalk?
Pierogi Kid, I'm not complaining about the infractions of everybody else. I'm just staying out of your way in a predictable fashion when it makes sense. A bike, whose weight is negligable, scooting across a cross walk is more comparable to a pedestrian crossing the street than a car, that can cause wreckage of an order of magnitude greater.
Your comparison to paying taxes is so silly as to be ridiculous. I pay my taxes. When I bike this way, I do so to the betterment of the car traffic I'm in and avoiding.
I don't see this as some great act of civil rebellion but just reacting to the traffic around me. This isn't wreckless behavior.
Well, considering I do feel guilty when I do jump red lights, even when I am doing it to avoid forcing cars to kill me, I really should try to take action. I looked in vain for this Stephen Patchan's email on the city website. I can, of course, email Pat Dowd, my councilman. And when I get Stephen Patchan's email, I will contact him too. We should have Council consider amending Pittsburgh's laws, and when we lose that vote, bug them again.
Meanwhile, I will renew my call for people to get their bike out of the basement, if not to commute then to do soe neighborhood riding after work and on the weekends. The more bicycles on the streets, the more people in general will agree with the need for bike paths. Meanwhile, commuting now is something many peole can do, and they will find they are saving money.
Bikecommuter - no you do not, so stop pretending.
Where there are bike lanes, where there is a shoulder with no cars parked, WHY DO BIKERS STILL INSIST ON BIKING IN THE STREET?!?! I have seen bikers, and I continue to see bikers, drive on the street when there is clearly a bike lane available. That is unsafe for you and for me.
Not to mention the massivly illegal acts that bikers constantly engage in - such as running red lights, blowing stop signs, and ignoring any and all traffic rules just because you feel like it.
You are not being safe. You are not helping traffic. You are not saving the environment. You are being a selfish jagoff.
Anonymouse, your rant has taken off on its own with only a passing interest in anything I actually said. (No I do not...what, exactly?)
Not that I'm not amused at being called a selfish jagoff. But the last time I checked, there were bike lanes available on only a few miles of streets in the entire city, only one of which I actually use (...and often don't use because there's lots of cars on it and I'd rather avoid it.) When I'm on that street, I use it.
Who said anything about the environment? I didn't.
I only hop through red lights when it's a sensible thing to do. It's every now on then, typically on streets without much car traffic to begin with. You might want to adjust your sense of proportion for all these "massively illegal" acts you mention. Not to mention your ALL-CAPS HYSTERICS. By your logic of not having bikes on the streets at all, we may as well ban all pedestrians as well.
anonymouse - no you do not, so stop pretending.
Where there are left turn arrows, where there are pedestrians crossing the street, WHY DO CAR DRIVERS STILL INSIST ON TURNING LEFT WHENEVER THEY FEEL LIKE IT?!?! I have seen car drivers, and I continue to see car drivers, make dangerous left turns when there are clearly pedestrians trying to cross. That is unsafe for you and for me.
Not to mention the massivly illegal acts that car drivers constantly engage in - such as running red lights, blowing stop signs, and ignoring any and all traffic rules just because you feel like it.
You are not being safe. You are not helping traffic. You are not saving the environment. You are being a selfish jagoff.
To be less sarcastic, and on the subject of violating traffic laws when it's appropriate:
If you've ever crossed Taylor Street at Liberty, right next to Tessaro's and Crazy Mocha, maybe you've noticed that the safest way to do this is to cross against the red light.
There is little traffic on Taylor that crosses over Liberty, so when you cross against the red light, you have very little chance of getting in the way of a car. But when you have the green light, you are almost certain to be hit by someone turning left off Liberty, trying to make it through the intersection before the next westbound car comes down Liberty. The more asinine ones blare their horns at you for daring to use the crosswalk.
And for some reason, the people turning right from Liberty to Taylor almost never use turn signals, so you have no idea if you're walking into the path of a car or not.
My point is, there are times when pedestrians almost HAVE to jaywalk, and many of these times are caused by inconsiderate motorists.
So please, if you have to rant, rant against people who walk, not people who ride bikes.
I'm still going to bike on the sidewalks.
Give me fines or give me death?
I'll take the 25.00 fine, thanks.
This conversation has only further persuaded me to continue illegally riding on sidewalks.
As that one dude once said,
"Give me fines or give me death!"
I'll take the 25.00 fine, thank you.
Actuallly I never jaywalk and I mean never. I am serious about that to the extent that friends and family tease me as I will wait for a light with no traffic approaching rather than cross against the light. I lived in Germany way too long where not only is that severely frowned upon, it will get you killed. Jaywalkers are a huge hassle for everybody
Jerry, you make my point better than I, and I know the exact intersection you talk about since I pass it all the time.
I'd revise your thoughts slightly: It's less a matter of violating traffic laws when "appropriate" than when it's a matter of being hit by a car. Etiquette aside, the law goes out the window when you see Denali bearing down on you and you don't know if they can see you or not.
Yes Bikecommuter, but I was writing less about jumping a traffic light by a few seconds (although it is nice to see the explanation for this) than things like ignoring the lights altogether, ignoring stop signs, and squeezing past cars that are stuck in traffic only to complain about ignorant drivers not noticing them.
Your "less impact in an accident" point is irrelevant. If you cause a low-impact snafu on your bike, and some car has to brake quickly to avoid it and that car gets rear-ended by another, you've caused just as much pain and suffering as if you were the one encased in metal.
As to "greater visibility" -- the "There was no one coming, officer!" line doesn't work for cars, even if you're in a situation where you can see 100 miles in either direction. I don't see why cyclists should get off the hook.
Remember, cyclists complain (rightly) that cars don't give them enough respect on the road. If you are interested in increasing that respect, it might behoove you to be observed scrupulously following the same rules that the rest of us should adhere to -- not complain that the "car-bound" are just being jealous.
City streets are not a place for feeling free, they are a place where the need to maintain a general atmosphere of order outweighs any individual's momentary utilitarian advantage.
Now, backing up -- this all makes the "education" part of the city's initiative interesting, don't you think? Are there reliable, real-life guidelines for how cars and bikes should interact in American cities that are also fully legal and won't leave the city liable for telling them to us?
"When I bike this way, I do so to the betterment of the car traffic I'm in and avoiding" Dude, your comment says volumes about the way you think. Do you think any traffic scofflaws say to themselves when they cut off a cyclist, "I know this is dangerous to that cyclist over there, but I am going to do it anyway" No, they say this is no big deal and I am doing it for the betterment of traffic. Sheesh. I am all for more bike friendly environs and I do think cyclists are abused out thereon the roads, but deciding which traffic laws to follow becuase you know best is dangerous. What if everybody does that. I think the tax example is extremely apropos btw.
Jaywalkers, like bicyclists, come in different types. We all share the road, but only car/SUV/Pickup/motorcyclist drivers have to get a license. They are also the ones who are likely to kill bicyclists or pedestrians.
Unfortunately the only way bad or reckless bicyclists or pedestrians will be discouraged is if the cops ticket them (us?). Me and bikecommuter claim to only jump a red light when it is safe/sensible. I would just point out that sometimes I do it so as to avoid a long line of cars that would be beside as I try to obey a different traffic law to be in the left lane for the next intersection. If I get caught at jumping the light, I will be ticked (and ticketed), but I won’t argue as long as it’s a fair cop (as the English say).
But to the other points, about how bicycles are out in traffic, when there’s a perfectly usable bike lane or shoulder with no car parked, I can only say I would use those things if they existed for me. They don’t, not in between Stanton Heights and CMU. I do the best I can to stay out of cars’ way for very practical reasons, but the traffic flow is what it is, and sometimes I have to get into it.
Agent SKA, buy a bell, ride carefully in the business districts or maybe walk your bike, and you should have no trouble.
Anonymouse, you are arguing bikes are not good for the environment, that they do not save gas?
Pierogie Kid, I call BS on this:
Do you think any traffic scofflaws say to themselves when they cut off a cyclist, "I know this is dangerous to that cyclist over there, but I am going to do it anyway" No, they say this is no big deal and I am doing it for the betterment of traffic.
Again, I'll speak as a pedestrian rather than a biker, since I do far more walking than biking.
When I am standing at a corner in the pouring rain trying to cross the street with the light, I doubt anyone in the steady stream of cars turning in front of me thinks they're helping the traffic flow. They're thinking, "Me first, and screw that wet dude over there." That's if they even notice me.
Obviously, the fact that some drivers are this rude does not mean that ALL drivers are this rude. Nor does the fact that some bikers flagrantly violate laws mean that ALL bikers disregard the law for their own convenience.
One of my least favorite habits of Pittsburghers is how, when we get behind the wheel, we seem to make it our mission to inconvenience others (drivers, bikers, and pedestrians) to the greatest extent possible. And I'm not the only person who recognizes this. So please, just stop with the anti-biker nonsense. Some of them are idiots and cause traffic problems. Most of them are at least as safe as the average motorist.
I don't ride in the business districts. I ride down Fifth Avenue, Penn Avenue, and Negley.
And a bell? *sigh* the dorkiness never seems to end...
Ska, read the chapter on the blind dolphin in Doulas Adams' "Last Chance to See". His description of interacting with swarms of Chinese bicyclists (and their bells) is priceless. Actually the whole book is quite good.
Jerry, you need to read the whole comment in context. I hear your pain though. I was just talking to a friend of mine out in Lodi Ca: Bud Green who was recently injured in a similar situation.
PK, I understand your desire for people to obey the laws, and I agree with it. But you're writing as if bikers are the only people who violate traffic laws.
Some of them do, but they're a small subset. And I guarantee you that if I counted the violations I see each day, I would count 10 times as many violations from motorists as from bikers.
For some reason, many motorists get their noses all bent out of shape by the occasional biker who swerves into their lane, but don't seem to care much about their fellow motorists who will almost run over pedestrians in their haste to shave fifteen seconds off their drive time.
I am writing from a hoofers point of view On average I drive, about 1x week. I live in the city I walk everywhere and take the bus to and from my office downtown. I am not mother teresa, nor in-line for the presidency of MENSA, but I seem to manage to follow the rules when on foot and I think its fair to ask the same of cyclists, motorists, and other peds. I know how motorists in the city are: poor at best downright dangerous at worst. But bike advocates have a victim's mentality that while justified in some respects is ony half of the story. Take Bram's advice and follow the rules, then bike adovcates will have an air-tight case for more recognition in this town.
Cars would be no less unsafe by rolling through stop signs and red lights than bicycles. So why is it illegal for cars? I dunno, it just is. Why do bikers think they have this right to disregard any law they fell like? I dunno, they just do.
So Anonymous, are you suggesting there's no difference in getting hit by a car than a bike?
Are you suggesting that bikers can do whatever they please because they do not weigh as much as automobiles?
Well, you didn't answer my question. But I'm suggesting that bicycles should use discretion when riding among car traffic, obeying traffic laws when appropriate but also steering clear of cars as much as possible. Some times that will lead to laws being "broken" but if done judiciously won't inconvenience anyone in the process.
"So Anonymous, are you suggesting there's no difference in getting hit by a car than a bike?" Bikecommuter you know that is not an accurate comparision this was already explained to you was it not ?(see Bram's comments). You don't get it do you. Go ahead just do what ever you want out there, after all you are so "judicious" we are just dumb pedstrians and commmuters who are we to judge your abilty to determine what laws shold be followed and what laws should be ignored brillant. Did you ever consider a career in public service?
i hate wen people say that "breaking the law" is giving cyclists a bad name as if we have this good name to uphold.
cyclists are in a grey area as far as the law is concerned. you say they need to follow the same laws as cars, yet we're allowed on the sidewalk, uhhh sometimes (?) whereas cars are never allowed on the sidewalk. i think it's time to update the laws to reflect how people act and to, yes, give a slight advantage and encouragement to users that do barely any damage to the streest, people and property as well as the environment.
Everyone try bicycling. Seriously. Just try it.
There has been a lot said about the cyclists' victim mentality, and while true, it is also justified. Drivers do not see cyclists, and they (we) are therefore more likely to break laws to get out in front and be seen. Cyclists will break fewer laws when accorded more respect by drivers - it is a two-way street.
Cyclists also should be held to different standards than cars because they are powering themselves. They sacrifice much more in terms of time and effort if they stop at a bottom of a hill.
Pma that is very true laws, need to be reexamined and updated. That should be the focus, petitioning local and state governments to update and than inform the public about the changes. But just ignoring laws you do not like, that is stupid.
"But just ignoring laws you do not like, that is stupid."
There should be clear but different laws for bikes in traffic and give and take that involves some enforcement and education. Clearly cars need to be careful of bikes, but bikes to be accountable too.
What makes biking so dangerous is there are so few bikes on the road and most drivers are surprised by them. Next summer when gas hits $5.50 it will get a lot safer.
OK, here's my final thoughts on this, responding to various posts by rank of their civility, then its back to the road to further aggravate all you cranky drivers :
Bram, you started right off the bat defining the issue only by the extreme, demonstrating God-like powers of observation to proclaim grandly:
"As of today, 100% of cyclists have egregiously broken at least one traffic law -- disregarding stop signs, blowing through red lights, blowing through red lights to make left turns, weaving in and out of traffic."
Then, lest we get confused by the matter and begin to look at too many nuances in some situations, you attempted to steer the issue back to blaming all cyclists for everything done wrong at the same time:
".... I was writing less about jumping a traffic light by a few seconds (although it is nice to see the explanation for this) than things like ignoring the lights altogether, ignoring stop signs, and squeezing past cars that are stuck in traffic only to complain about ignorant drivers not noticing them."
In attempting to respond to such a kitchen sink bundle of gripes, I'm not advocating for obliviously ignoring all basic laws of traffic all the time. I'm only suggesting that there are some times when people on bikes can get away from traffic by going through some traffic signals, putting greater distance between cars and bikes so that the kind of hypothetical you mention is less likely.
I disagree that my less impact point is irrelevant. A car, with both its power and its heft, requires a far greater level of responsibility, and can do far greater harm. Instead, it's an essential difference between bikes and cars that requires some education and hopefully some revisiting of laws that make more sense for cars than bikes.
Cyclists must negotiate a very different set of consequences, in which traffic laws often get put aside, whether by necessity, choice or fear, so they can just get away from cars. When you're own
After your law and order speech, and the gentle breeze I felt from your wagging finger, I can't say that I'm convinced about this high talk of "needing to maintain a general atmosphere of order." Can't we have a basic framework of laws without needing a police state?
Cars and bikes just need to understand each other be able to predict how each other is going to behave, both through traffic laws that understand the needs and limits of both, the customs that grow out of actual experience, and basic communication.
Pirogi Kid:
I apologize for insulting you somehow by merely using the word judicious. Happy tax-paying.
Anonymous:
Don't let us selfish jagoffs get you down!
There...no more. Back to saving the environment while breaking the law.
Dude anybody who thinks traffic laws are akin to a police state needs some help
So if I'm scared of big 18 wheeler trucks, is that enough reason to run a red light in my compact car?
So if I'm scared of big 18 wheeler trucks, is that enough reason to run a red light in my compact car?
anonymouse, take a ride someday. serious. then check back and let us know how it went.
I didn't come out of my mothers womb with a drivers license. I spent 17+ years on a bike to get around, and I did just fine stopping at red lights and staying out of traffic.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/ne...ory/
424949.html talk about police state
yawn...
No, I would agree with the Pierogie Kid, sort of, on this. The Critical Mass people are the furthest thing from a police state, IMO. In fact they have clashed with the police here in the past. I agree with the spirit of their activities, i.e respect for bicyclists, but that story indicates they are out of control, in Seattle if not everywhere. I hope the government prosecutes, and I hope the Critical Mass people cooperate. After all, if they want cars to share the road with them, they have to be willing to share the road.
"No, I would agree with the Pierogie Kid, sort of, on this"
Oh come on Ed, just ask Infinonymous and he'll tell you that the driver was just suffering from a persecution complex.
what does this incident in seattle have to do with the discussion? i can start listing road rage incidents too
sorry, I just thought that was a funny article. Beating a motorist, I mean ,that is crazy. For the record, I think cyclists do a great service to Pittsburgh, by relieving congestion and pollution. I am all for them full stop.
pma, I think the bicyclists commenting here would all agree that there are rude drivers. I have been lucky, I've never pissed off anyone enough for them to stop or intentionally run me off the road. I have never experienced major road rage directly, but we all know it exists.
The Seattle story matters because the Critical Mass people used violence when a driver wanted to use the road. It sounds like an unfortunate misunderstanding and escalation, but I can't condone what the Critical Mass people did there. To make a bad analogy, its as if a group of Jews rounded up some Nazis after WWII and shot them en mass for being Nazis. It would be just as bad (in quality but not quantity) as what the Nazis did (Remember, I am positing a hypothetical here).
I saw a Critical Mass ride here a couple of months ago. I was sitting in the Starbucks at Forbes and Craig on the last Friday of the month after work. A couple of bicycles physically blocked Forbes at Craig while some number (more than a hundred, I think) of bicycles came from the Pitt Union down Forbes and turned onto Craig. There was no notion of sharing the road, they simply took it over for at lest ten minutes, and too bad for any drivers trying to get anywhere. To me, that is going too far. But Critical Mass is only a small subset of bicyclists, and I also resist extrapolating any general conclusions from what they do. Still, I wish they would do it differently.
those kids need to get a better grip on reality and/or a job
ed, there is nothing right about what happened in seattle. i sure wasn't defending it.
i just don't see what it has to do with the discussion. its also a really boring way to try to prove a point.
nobody brought up drag racing and talked about how it's bad for the image of drivers and extrapolating that all drivers are into drag racing.
cyclists are not an amorphous blob
"I saw a Critical Mass ride here a couple of months ago... There was no notion of sharing the road, they simply took it over for at lest ten minutes, and too bad for any drivers trying to get anywhere."
Critical Mass is a protest, not a commute.
Critical mass are bunch of incompetent malcontents that can barely stage a bike ride let alone affect policy change. Anyway, it's going to stink, driving, bussing, biking or even walking on area streets and roads this weekend with massive construction planned. Be careful. If I am driving I will be sure to give the utmost courtesy and respect to cyclists like pma (seriously) refrain from any right hooks or other bike unfriendly behavior. I will be especially sure to give a bikecommuter a wide-ass berth as he/she might be out there trying to overthrow the police state by blowing off stop signs
I like taking down the police state by riding down broken down sidewalks with my oh-so-fashionable bell, helmet, and mountain bike. I'm the picture of rebellion.
Critical Mass just can't quite keep up with my edginess.
you should top that look off with a flowered basket and those pink and green plastic spoke clips
Or a bell. Or a mirror on the helmet I assume you are wearing. 'cause dorkiness knows no limits (but in the name of safety…?).
everybody in Germany has a bell on their bike and have no probs giving you a ring or tow if you are in thhe way
One more thought, that has occurred to me over this whole tortured process.
I believe most, if not all, drivers of cars/SUVs/Motorcycles/pickups either/both exceed the posted speed limit in the city and/or on the highway, and/or do not come to a full stop at stop signs, at least once a day. But we are used to that, we accept it and indeed are annoyed if the car in front of us does rigorously obey the law. We notice bicycles blowing through stop signs or traffic lights or weaving through stopped traffic or pulling out in front of us as they go around a parked car because bicycles are still rare on the streets here. But in strict terms of breaking the traffic laws, do we or don’t we all do it, no matter what our chosen means of transportation? I suppose I should throw jaywalking in there too, although I am not sure of the strict definition of it.
We are with bells, helmets, gloves, reflective gear at times, and lights --- in Beijing. Plus, I sometimes wear my bike outfit -- so that I am NOT hit. I get looks. And, that is what I seek. Look at me so you can avoid me -- and those that follow me (kids and wife).
To stand out and be a bit - 'dorky' - works wonders here in Beijing.
I have long played this game in my car -- every time I see a cyclist on the street, I watch them to confirm that they will break a traffic law while I can still see them. As of today, 100% of cyclists have egregiously broken at least one traffic law
Funny, Bram, I like to play a similar game while riding my bike called "How many 4,000 pound vehicles can jeopardize my life today?" Granted, it's no where near 100%, but since there's an awful lot more motorists than cyclists it outweighs your 100% figure.
I love how even though there are dozens of times a week where I see cars and buses blowing through stop lights going anywhere from 35 to 50 mph, or blowing through the stop sign right at my corner in a residential neighborhood, these types of egregious law-breaking aren't seen as annoying as cyclists breaking the law. CARS KILL. They've just so saturated our environment that no one notices them breaking the law, or cares to do anything about it. Cyclists on the other hand.. now there's the real problem. Give me a break.
Do me a favor all you complainers, ride a bike for 1 week and then come back to this post and post your new perspective. Oh and I want in-the-saddle helmet cam footage to make sure not a single one of you break the law.
I see cyclist riding on a busy street oblivious to everything going on around them. I guess it becomes my option to either drive as if I am in a two-mile school zone or risk a life by passing an idiot on a bicycle. Use some commonsense or stay off the streets. Dont ride on busy streets during rush hour and expect courtesy.
"[Cars] have just so saturated our environment that no one notices them breaking the law, or cares to do anything about it."
Okay, fine. Maybe. A decent point. Although I know I have been on the receiving end of law enforcement that has definitely cared to do something about it, on several occasions.
Look. I can't pursue our public officials on the basis of not upholding or obeying the laws of the land while simultaneously exempting other citizens from that same necessity. (Not unless certain unalienable rights would be violated by the exercise of those laws.)
And you can say that cars by their very nature violate your inalienable right to life. Fine. But until you are in a position politically to begin eliminating cars from our landscape, what I am saying is it would behoove you to do what you can to assuage the legitimate gripes of the car-driving community, if you would like to have an easier time of it sharing the road. Frankly, I have no idea why the suggestion that you should have a little more respect for the law is that repugnant to some of you. I know you're not ALWAYS biking the way you're biking in order to stay alive.
"Funny, Bram, I like to play a similar game while riding my bike called "How many 4,000 pound vehicles can jeopardize my life today?""
Perspective: it's not the cars that are jeopardizing your life, it's the act of choosing to ride a bike amongst cars on roads designed for them and not you that is risky.
Show of hands now: how many people in cars have ever observed a bicycle riding in traffic in lane with other traffic versus how many have observed bicycles riding to the right of cars and passing them as they travel city streets?
It's illegal to pass a vehicle on the right for a very good reason; it's extremely dangerous and for the driver who's following the law and watching the traffic in front of him, it's virtually impossible to be aware of vehicles approaching from behind and to the right.
Despite the claims to the contrary by cyclists the fact is it is virtually unheard of for them to navigate city streets in a lawful manner. When they're not blowing through intersections, lights and stop signs they're illegally weaving in and out of cars, traveling to the right and passing in lanes that exist only in their imagination and using the size and maneuverability of their chosen mode of transportation to conjure up excuses for violating traffic laws with each push of the peddle.
I've been driving for close to forty years and I've yet to see a bicyclist who rides in a safe an lawful manner.
"Perspective: it's not the cars that are jeopardizing your life, it's the act of choosing to ride a bike amongst cars on roads designed for them and not you that is risky."
Actually I think most roads were designed for trolleys, horses, wagons, bicycles and foot traffic. That's why parking is such a bitch and passing a UPS guy on a side street requires folding in your mirrors.
Current structure is very pro-car, but that is the debate here. Do we make them something designed to share?
"It's illegal to pass a vehicle on the right for a very good reason; it's..."
this is taken from PennDOT's Pennsylvania Bicycle Drivers Manual:
GETTING THROUGH TRAFFIC JAMS
Traffic jams don’t have to stop you -- that’s one of the biggest advantages of bicycling in the city. But in the tight quarters of a tie-up, take extra care. Stopped cars in a traffic jam present the same hazards as parked cars: blindspots, doors and unpredictable starts and turns...
...If there is an open passing lane, use it rather than thread between cars. If the street is completely plugged, pick your way forward slowly and with your hands on the brake levers. Remember, any car door could open!
If you’re in a traffic jam, you can be fairly sure that the cars will not move, since they have nowhere to go. But if there’s an open driveway or parking space into which a car could turn, you have to assume that it will. Look to see whether the car’s front wheels are turned. Move away from the side of the car as you pass, and try to get the driver’s attention as you approach the front of the car....
...These traffic-jam tactics are reasonably safe, but in some cities it may not be legal for a bicyclist to pass on the right or ride between lanes of traffic. On the other hand, it’s usually legal for you, or any driver, to cautiously disobey normal traffic rules when the road is “obstructed.”
See now, if people here would follow the Agent Ska route, there would be none of this bickering.
Sidewalks fo' Life.
"Sidewalks fo' Life."
Sidewalks are more dangerous.
Puts pedestrians at risk ans makes you more likley to come out of nowhere when you cross driveways and intersections.
Alot of accidents involve sidewalks.
Show of hands, how many people have seen motorists run red lights, go much faster than the posted 25 mph speed LIMIT, cut people off, and do stupid things such as talk or txt on their cell phones.
There's a hierarchy of responsibility. I've seen more cars (in sheer numbers) breaking the law than cyclists. perhaps there's a greater percentage of cyclists not obeying every rule of the road, but when's the last time you've heard of a cyclist injuring anyone other than themselves or causing massive damage to private property?
there are tens of thousands of deaths from automobiles a year. many of these deaths are pedestrians and cyclists. Cars cause most of the deaths and injuries on our streets and cars are the real cause of our unsafe streets. not bicyclists.
Well, I drive and I bike, so I am sympathetic to both positions. But as for bikes riding on the right, do you really expect bikes to be right out in the middle of traffic, when we are generally only moving around twenty miles an hour (at most)? We need to be over on the right and passable. Of course, it gets more complicated if we have to make a left.
I think every cyclist should invest in a helmet or handlebar mounted mirror. That can allow you to proceed into the center of traffic when it is safe (ie no cars coming) to make your left turn.
I certainly think that every bicyclist should wear a helmet, and if the cops see a cyclist listening to a MP# player, he/she should be pulled over and ticketed. Of course, I am against drivers talked on the phone (unless they use a speakerphone) or listening to an ipod while driving.
I think everyone should agree by now at this point in this thread that both cars and bikes break traffic laws as posted (though I don’t see many cars stop at a red light and then suddenly go through it, I think only bikes do that). Of course car drivers have all the political muscle and support, and any poll of the general public will show complaints about the behavior of cyclists But we will probably see more people on bikes in the coming years, so hopefully the general public will adapt or at least show a little courtesy (and hopefully cyclists will too)
Rich Lord, lazy reporter: http://postgazette.com/pg/08231/...1/905129-
85.stm
I'm fairly certain that he just copied and pasted from our 90+ posts to write his article.
Oh, and what the fuck about "proposed legislation that would bar drivers from turning in front of cyclists that are going straight, and compel motor vehicles to give bikes a 4-foot berth when passing them"
4-foot clearance on Pittsburgh side streets puts me three feet off the road and falling down a hill. I'm sure that rule is great in the flatlands of York, PA - but holy crap I hope that fails miserably.
Wow. I'm a bicyclist--been commuting on a bike to work for years--but this thread is really giving me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ... about bicyclists. There is clearly a bitter, obnoxious, self-important subset of humanity populating our ranks, IMHO.
You know, Rich could have chosen to not write about biking. Would that have been better? And what, you wanted him to come up with something fresh, considering how much has been said, ad nauseum, in this and other threads since Bright Eyes was named Bike Czar? Sheesh, somebody's spandex is way too tight.
P-G: "Scott Bricker, executive director of Bike Pittsburgh, said that cyclists should "ride predictably and obey the law.""
Then:
""There's a physics argument on why some bikers don't stop at stop signs," Mr. Bricker said. It takes a lot of energy to get a bicycle from zero to cruising speed, he noted, so if the coast is clear, some cyclists roll on."
And obviously, I love this:
"Some cyclists seem to treat all signs as optional, said Tim Weber, assistant general manager of operations for The Pitt News, who commutes from McCandless to Oakland daily.
"In 22 years of commuting to Oakland, I have never seen a cyclist stop at a red light or stop sign," he said."
Corroboration!
"In 22 years of commuting to Oakland, I have never seen a cyclist stop at a red light or stop sign," he said."
Believe it or not, it does happen.
Believe it or not, there are still a few Pittsburghers who read the Post-Gazette but not the blogs. I know, they're crass Luddites who probably eat bicycle riders' babies for lunch, but still, I'm OK with letting them in on the debate.
"But as for bikes riding on the right, do you really expect bikes to be right out in the middle of traffic"
That's sort of the point; there is really no safe way for bikes to share the road with cars, it is an inherently dangerous thing to do. So when people like Pittsburgh Bicyclist make patently absurd statements like cars cause most of the death and injuries it needs to be challenged.
If a cyclist is traveling to the right of cars where no legitimate lane exists and collides with a car making a legal turn it is a combination of physics and poor choices on the part of the cyclists whic causes the death or injury, not the car or its driver.
See PMA's posted content from the PennDOT manual written to address what is permitted when traffic is OBSTRUCTED. This is but one example of common, illegal and extremely dangerous behavior by all cyclists regardless of traffic conditions.
Cyclists may suffer greater harms resulting from their encounters with cars but far more often than not it is their own actions that create those encounters.
From the Pennnsylvania DOT:
"c) Slower than prevailing speeds.-- A pedalcycle operated at slower than prevailing speed shall be operated in accordance with the provisions of Section 3301(b), unless it is unsafe to do so.
[3301(b). Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed.
Upon all roadways, any vehicles proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place under the conditions than existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into an alley, private road or driveway. This subsection does not apply to a driver who must necessarily drive in a lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on his intended route.]
Comment: Taken together, 3505 (c) and 3301 (b) state that slower vehicles should keep to the right, which is the normal expectation of all road users, while permitting bicyclists to make movements consistent with their intended route."
I understand, PG, you want all bicycles out of your way. But saying that vehicle accidents involving car and bicycle will not make it so. If a car turns right, it is obliged to signal and make sure the route is clear. Granted, if a bicycle comes from the rear and fails to stop for a car signalling, slowing down and turning right, that's the bike's fault. But if a car overtakes a bicycle and then turns right on top if it, that's the cars fault. Period.
"Cyclists may suffer greater harms resulting from their encounters with cars but far more often than not it is their own actions that create those encounters."
When did people on bicycles become the fringe minority group that they are today?
The most dangerous things in any traffic situations is when you mix vehicles of different sizes and when vehicles are traveling different speeds. That doesn't mean we need to all drive turbo charged tanks around to ensure we "win" in any and all accidents.
There are plenty of reasonable ways to reduce the risk of harm. Including directing bike traffic to side streets and creating bike lanes to remind drivers to check their blind spot before the right. Bicyclists that have multiple violations should also have to get the equivalent of a license, complete a safety test.
"Bicyclists that have multiple violations should also have to get the equivalent of a license, complete a safety test."
Would kids have to get a license?
"So when people like Pittsburgh Bicyclist make patently absurd statements like cars cause most of the death and injuries it needs to be challenged."
Um.. so tell me where the 45,000+ roadway deaths a year come from if not mostly from cars. Are the facts patently absurd?
"Would kids have to get a license?"
It's just an idea, but if a little kid gets several tickets for running red lights I think we have a bigger issue.
The notion of regulating children on bicycles gets to how much of a problem this is. How much should bicyclists bend to accomdate cars? A child can probably ride a bicyle before (s)he can read. Would we keep kids off bikes until they can complete the test? Retest them with progressively more difficult tests?
As for your comment about turbo charged tanks and "winning" in a crash, I think that might be exactly the idea behind Lincoln Navigators and the biggest SUV's. Of course, they are so big they squeeze bikes right off the road. Result!
"The notion of regulating children on bicycles gets to how much of a problem this is. How much should bicyclists bend to accomdate cars? A child can probably ride a bicyle before (s)he can read. Would we keep kids off bikes until they can complete the test? Retest them with progressively more difficult tests?"
Man that horse came out of the chute fast.
All I was saying was that people riding in traffic that get fined might be required to go through a driver license like test on the rules of the road.
Clearly you can't require all bike riders to have a license any more then we can require a permit for walking.
repost
I'll share this from yesterday evening jogging back home on Bouquet I was almost creamed while in he cross walk by a car that did not bother stop at the stop sign right there in front of the business school behind the law school. A second later I saw a cyclist not only come to a full stop at that stop sign, but used a hand signal to indicate a right turn! Really cool. Sort of ironic given our conversation here.
I bet he was not a Pittsburgh native.
Just catching up on my blog reading. Mark Rauterkus will be home soon and willing to tell us all of the merits of bike-riding. My riding days are behind me, but on my city hills I can push a bike around if I have to. My bike is so old my kids only let me ride it outside Allegheny county. I see alot of riders near the Technology Center on Second Avenue. You oughta see them fly from the Bates Street tunnel. Such speed that you think they could go airborn to cross the river to SS. Those riders I trust to do the right thing. I love a topic like this that brings so many to the keyboard.
I'm still in Beijing for two more weeks. So, I'll be home -- soon enough.
We rode last light from the woman's team handball venue to our apartment at 10:30-11 pm. Steets were safe, calm, cool, with good lighting -- and flat, of course.
Dee -- your bike days need not be over with one of the China styled electric bikes.
And, we've got some parts of town where there are hills. But, many other parts of Pittsburgh would do very well with bikes.
Commenting by HaloScan
