- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bike lane controversy on Glenmore Ave in BR
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:10 am to TigerBR1111
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:10 am to TigerBR1111
you realize you have probably been the most unreasonable person in this thread
and I'm assuming you're a resident of this street
and I'm assuming you're a resident of this street
1
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:10 am to Salmon
If a homeowner needs to occasionally park in the bike lane it doesn't render it useless. Simply carefully maneuver around the vehicle. Why is this too difficult? Glenmore is not a busy street.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:13 am to Salmon
I am not a resident of Glenmore AND I occasionally ride a bike on Glenmore but I am convinced the residents are correct on this issue.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:13 am to TigerBR1111
quote:
Glenmore is not a busy street.
this is the issue of the matter
it seems the street didn't need or warrant a bike lane
quote:
Simply carefully maneuver around the vehicle. Why is this too difficult?
like I tried to explain to you earlier, on this street it may not be a real issue, but it sets a precedent city wide and it could be a major issue on busier streets
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:17 am to TigerBR1111
quote:
If a homeowner needs to occasionally park in the bike lane it doesn't render it useless. Simply carefully maneuver around the vehicle. Why is this too difficult? Glenmore is not a busy street.
I have been trying to say this the entire time. Bikers think that residents will flood the bike lane with parked cars but it's simply not the case.
Bikers stepped on their on dick by complaining so now there will be no bike lane. If they had just kept their mouth shut and went around the handful of parked car this never would have happened.
I find it interesting that the only bikers in town who stop for stop signs and follow traffic laws are posters on the OT.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:24 am to Barf
Why does it work for CH but not Glenmore? The parking in front of homes issue is the same.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:24 am to Barf
quote:was this the conclusion reached at the meeting? is this really happening?
so now there will be no bike lane
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:25 am to TigerBR1111
In your analogy, the wife might be a bitch, but the husband is still a dick 
ETA: I also hope you realize that it's not the cyclists being arrogant. I'd say it's pretty arrogant to play the whole, "well if you don't like what I gave you, I have the right to take it away" card as if they are the true owners of the street. They may have that voting power, but it's pretty arrogant to act that way.
And to the "safely maneuvering around" argument. I'm not super familiar with who rides around that area, but it is safer as a cyclist to stay in the actual roadway and establish their right to a lane, than to jet in and out in order to avoid obstacles in the bike lane/shoulder. When a cyclist looks back to see if the lane is clear to get around the car (or any obstacle), he's usually going to swerve a bit in the direction he's turning his head (right into the lane). So if he had a car right on his butt and he did that, he might swerve into the lane and collide with the vehicle. It's safer to be in the lane the entire time, letting the driver know your intention to be there and having him safely pass when the opportunity presents itself. Bike lane solved even having to worry about any of that, until you block the bike lane.
ETA: I also hope you realize that it's not the cyclists being arrogant. I'd say it's pretty arrogant to play the whole, "well if you don't like what I gave you, I have the right to take it away" card as if they are the true owners of the street. They may have that voting power, but it's pretty arrogant to act that way.
And to the "safely maneuvering around" argument. I'm not super familiar with who rides around that area, but it is safer as a cyclist to stay in the actual roadway and establish their right to a lane, than to jet in and out in order to avoid obstacles in the bike lane/shoulder. When a cyclist looks back to see if the lane is clear to get around the car (or any obstacle), he's usually going to swerve a bit in the direction he's turning his head (right into the lane). So if he had a car right on his butt and he did that, he might swerve into the lane and collide with the vehicle. It's safer to be in the lane the entire time, letting the driver know your intention to be there and having him safely pass when the opportunity presents itself. Bike lane solved even having to worry about any of that, until you block the bike lane.
This post was edited on 10/6/15 at 9:59 am
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:28 am to KG6
quote:
I've seen the bike lanes in Houma. That is idiotic. It's not really a bike lane as much as it's a "share the road area". Problem is, they picked the stupidest place I can think of to make a "share the road area". The whole purpose is to draw attention to motorists that this is an area that you may come upon cyclists, but in reality I doubt people ride all that much there. And again, if the intent was to draw cyclists to ride in that area, what a stupid, stupid, stupid idea.
I think they just went with the cheapest, easiest fix. I'd love to see Houma become more outdoor activity friendly. Aside from hunting and fishing, they really do not do much to promote that. I'm not a fan of biking and running along MLK.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:29 am to torrey225
quote:
Why does it work for CH but not Glenmore? The parking in front of homes issue is the same.
I was just thinking the same. Maybe the sense of entitlement is going both ways...
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:30 am to KG6
quote:
And to the "safely maneuvering around" argument. I'm not super familiar with who rides around that area, but it is safer as a cyclist to stay in the actual roadway and establish their right to a lane, than to jet in and out in order to avoid obstacles in the bike lane/shoulder. When a cyclist looks back to see if the lane is clear to get around the car (or any obstacle), he's usually going to swerve a bit in the direction he's turning his head (right into the lane).
This is constantly an issue on Park Blvd. Another street that would be best suited for a bike lane down the median.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:33 am to jmarto1
quote:
biking and running along MLK.
lol.... death wish. frick that
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:42 am to KG6
quote:
And to the "safely maneuvering around" argument. I'm not super familiar with who rides around that area, but it is safer as a cyclist to stay in the actual roadway and establish their right to a lane, than to jet in and out in order to avoid obstacles in the bike lane/shoulder. When a cyclist looks back to see if the lane is clear to get around the car (or any obstacle), he's usually going to swerve a bit in the direction he's turning his head (right into the lane). So if he had a car right on his butt and he did that, he might swerve into the lane and collide with the vehicle. It's safer to be in the lane the entire time, letting the driver know your intention to be there and having him safely pass when the opportunity presents itself. Bike lane solved even having to worry about any of that, until you block the bike lane.
We rode our Sting-Rays 10,000 miles when we were kids, on streets much busier than Glenmore. No helmets, no bike lanes, no casualties. Continuously preaching that bike lanes and sidewalks will make any measurable difference in Baton Rouge's traffic problems is ludicrous. It's simply political correctness applied to traffic engineering.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:44 am to Jobin
quote:
biking and running along MLK.
lol.... death wish. frick that
The funny thing is that the danger is not in getting shotPosted on 10/6/15 at 9:45 am to Jobin
When I see a person just try to cross MLK on foot, I cringe. I see people hanging out in the suicide lane in the middle, waiting to cross the other two lanes of traffic. I'm thinking to myself, I would be pissing and shitting my pants the entire time I was standing there. Cars driving 50 mph jetting in and out of that middle lane and you are just going to stand there with your Walmart bag 
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:46 am to torrey225
quote:
Why does it work for CH but not Glenmore? The parking in front of homes issue is the same.
First, there have been "no parking" signs installed on the shoulder though the entirety of CH. Second, the distance from a cross-street is much shorter than Glenmore. So if you were to have a party at your home it's not going to be a major inconvenience. Third, CH has bike/walk lanes on both sides of the one-lane vehicle road. So if someone sees a car parked in the bike lane (it does happen, but rather infrequently) they can move to the other side of the road and have a safe travel lane.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:50 am to KG6
quote:
Cars driving 50 mph jetting in and out of that middle lane and you are just going to stand there with your Walmart bag
Amazingly in five years I have never seen someone hit in front of my store. They really need to redo MLK like Vets and take away the left turn. Would be great if they could figure out a way to do a few pedestrian crossings.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:51 am to hawkster
quote:
We rode our Sting-Rays 10,000 miles when we were kids, on streets much busier than Glenmore. No helmets, no bike lanes, no casualties. Continuously preaching that bike lanes and sidewalks will make any measurable difference in Baton Rouge's traffic problems is ludicrous. It's simply political correctness applied to traffic engineering.
I think the issue with this argument is that there are more vehicles on the road now...and more importantly a lot more distracted drivers.
LINK
This post was edited on 10/6/15 at 9:52 am
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:51 am to Golfer
this is really going to be interesting how this is handled, as I can see both sides to this
The biking community doesn't want the lane removed or people parking in the lane because it sets a precedent city wide, and either seems a move backwards
The residents all of a sudden lost their parking in front of their homes, which they have always had, although I guess one could argue that they should have been aware of the rules of bike lanes before the residents granted this "gift"
The biking community doesn't want the lane removed or people parking in the lane because it sets a precedent city wide, and either seems a move backwards
The residents all of a sudden lost their parking in front of their homes, which they have always had, although I guess one could argue that they should have been aware of the rules of bike lanes before the residents granted this "gift"
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:54 am to Salmon
I thought this line, buried in the very last 2 sentences of the Advocate's story, was pretty telling...
Sounds like, for the bikers, "Figure out a compromise or you may not like the results."
quote:
Marcelle said the staff would evaluate the costs for some of the proposed compromises. She said she doesn’t want to remove bike paths, but she also acknowledged that the homeowners along the route had some power in the situation.
“I don’t want all of you to push them into a corner where they come and feel like they have no where to go,” Marcelle said of the conflict.
Sounds like, for the bikers, "Figure out a compromise or you may not like the results."
This post was edited on 10/6/15 at 9:55 am
Page 14 of 31
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News