Get Serious About Cycling, Bangkok Candidates Told

[hellodolly]

hellodolly:

I didn't say it was ineffective, did someone else? The filter material I used was 3M Filtrete^TM

and it's available just about anywhere, but is relatively expensive. It

was intended to supplement the filter the indoor A/C unit has (usually

just a fine, plastic mesh). It appears to be exceptional as the cheaper

foam type filters did not appear to trap the pollution as well, or at

all.

I've since evolved to a 100% A/C, closed room

rather than trying to cool the room with outside air at night using the

evaportation-cooler-converted-to-air-filter. This is a

'shelter-in-place' configuration, as if a nearby oil refinery had caught

fire. As far as I'm concerned, with the number of un-smogged vehicles

in Bangkok that's about what we're looking at, The last time I cleaned

the A/C plastic mesh filters I got a lot of black sludge from the

pollution that had adhered to the mesh, which could not be a very effective filter.

It was in response to driedmango's response to you. You were right on.

His response was

"Really all those filters and masks do nothing at all at the end of the

day you can't clean air with a piece of paper filter, the worst stuff is

so tiny you can't filter it .. there is nothing you can really do about

air pollution but get rid of the root cause of it, then it goes away or

dies down in a few days."

[MaxYakov]

Cycling like running are both about the worst exercise for your health.

All they achieve is to grind down your Chondrocytes (cartilage cells) and shorten your telomeres (protective caps at the end of your chromosomes)

Recent research shows that In fact no exercise is better for you than either cycling or running.

Could be true. Worked for me. I bike, but in moderation and always thought running was too much work. I have all my originally-issued body parts and they are working fine ... so far.

[candypants]

Cycling for exercise should be encouraged but definitely not at the expense of pedestrians, Bangkok pavements are already poorly maintained and clogged with vendors etc and having to dodge cyclists would be a very dangerous prospect.

The majority should not be inconvenienced - much less put at risk - merely to indulge the hobby of a few.

Anyone who cycles in Bangkok as their main form of transport however is, frankly, fairly idiotic.

A few months ago I hired a private Math teacher (a Farang) for my daughter - the fool arrived at my door having cycled from Ladprao to Soi Asoke covered in sweat and stinking of traffic fumes; he was puzzled and quite offended when I refused him entry and cancelled the lessons.

Patrick

Prejudice personified

you try so hard to be Thai, it seems to be working.

offended? i would have put my lock through your window

[up-country_sinclair]

Recent research shows that In fact no exercise is better for you than either cycling or running.

Ridiculous.

[theajarn]

I would cycle everyday in Australia, found it very relaxing and it kept me fit. I continued to cycle here in Thailand but gave it away after a few near misses with idiots overtaking and driving in the left shoulder of the roads.

Same here. It just got to that point, you know, where you start to feel like ... you BETTER stop because you KNOW your luck will not hold out... LUCK... that's exactly what you need when you're on a bicycle in this godforsaken country.

Oh well hey -- maybe we can all vote Pongsapat. I'm sure Yinluck will lend Bangkok some of the billions the government has pocketed... if only we cyclists had a fraction of that pork barrel...

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

Can't really imagine riding much near BKK.

I ride in Chiang Mai and it's stressful as hell getting out of town and in the countryside and mountains its amazing good riding with relatively low risk if one chooses smart routes.

The 3M respirators definitely do work. A few weeks ago I was wheezing in my condo and went for a ride with the mask and felt good.. No irritation or coughing during a 3 hour ride. It is hot and sweaty and another piece of equipment to deal with.

My mask is pretty basic and about 500 baht. Uses replaceable filters.

[hellodolly]

I would cycle everyday in Australia, found it very relaxing and it kept me fit. I continued to cycle here in Thailand but gave it away after a few near misses with idiots overtaking and driving in the left shoulder of the roads.

Same here. It just got to that point, you know, where you start to feel like ... you BETTER stop because you KNOW your luck will not hold out... LUCK... that's exactly what you need when you're on a bicycle in this godforsaken country.

Oh well hey -- maybe we can all vote Pongsapat. I'm sure Yinluck will lend Bangkok some of the billions the government has pocketed... if only we cyclists had a fraction of that pork barrel...

Thought you were leaving this "godforsaken country"

[kdw512]

I love biking and ride my bike everyday in Thailand. Yes, it is dangerous, but for a great part of the way from my apartment building to Lumpini on weekdays, traffic is bumper to bumper, and I can zig-zag thru just like the motorbikes. On weekends and holidays traffic is light in the morning, and not too dangerous. Is Bangkok polluted? Sure, but you breath the same air by walking, or jogging. It would be very nice to have bike paths to and from parks, but before that can happen, can someone at least do something about the idiots walking or jogging on the bike paths in Lumpini? The park is open for bicycles from 10AM - 3PM, and yet no one respects the bike path rules, and the guards at Lumpini don't give a #%@*.

reminded me of this......

" If you ride you know those moments when you have fed yourself into the traffic, felt the hashed-up asphalt rattle in the handlebars, held a lungful of air in a cloud of exhaust. Up ahead there are two parallel buses. With cat's whiskers, you measure the clearance down a doubtful alley. You swing wide, outflank that flower truck. The cross-street yellow light is turning red. You burst off the green like a surfer on a wave of metal. You have a hundred empty yards of Broadway to yourself."

~Chip Brown, "A Bike and a Prayer"

Pure adrenaline - and here in BKK you also get to breathe the chili peppers from the street food vendors along with the exhaust.

[sunshine51]

This is all fine well & good out in the "burbs" & countryside...

But in BKK...I can see this happening soon...

[DeepInTheForest]

Cycling for exercise should be encouraged but definitely not at the expense of pedestrians, Bangkok pavements are already poorly maintained and clogged with vendors etc and having to dodge cyclists would be a very dangerous prospect.

The majority should not be inconvenienced - much less put at risk - merely to indulge the hobby of a few.

Anyone who cycles in Bangkok as their main form of transport however is, frankly, fairly idiotic.

A few months ago I hired a private Math teacher (a Farang) for my daughter - the fool arrived at my door having cycled from Ladprao to Soi Asoke covered in sweat and stinking of traffic fumes; he was puzzled and quite offended when I refused him entry and cancelled the lessons.

Patrick

To my way of thinking, dodging cyclists is less dangerous than dodging the cars that they would otherwise be forced to use.

Similarly, every cyclist implies one less car and thus fewer exhaust fumes, no? We seem to not like traffic fumes.

Cycling is more than a hobby-- it's a way to get around. As the densities of cities increases, it will be very difficult to accommodate a car for every traveller. That would seem to imply that bicycles will be part of the solution to urban air pollution and transport density problems.

Yes, there will be difficulties integrating bicycles with auto traffic. These are worth struggling through, in my view. The difficulties associated with ever-increasing auto traffic far exceed the difficulties with integrating cyclists in the traffic flow.

[MaxYakov]

Cycling for exercise should be encouraged but definitely not at the expense of pedestrians, Bangkok pavements are already poorly maintained and clogged with vendors etc and having to dodge cyclists would be a very dangerous prospect.

The majority should not be inconvenienced - much less put at risk - merely to indulge the hobby of a few.

Anyone who cycles in Bangkok as their main form of transport however is, frankly, fairly idiotic.

A few months ago I hired a private Math teacher (a Farang) for my daughter - the fool arrived at my door having cycled from Ladprao to Soi Asoke covered in sweat and stinking of traffic fumes; he was puzzled and quite offended when I refused him entry and cancelled the lessons.

Patrick

To my way of thinking, dodging cyclists is less dangerous than dodging the cars that they would otherwise be forced to use.

Similarly, every cyclist implies one less car and thus fewer exhaust fumes, no? We seem to not like traffic fumes.

Cycling is more than a hobby-- it's a way to get around. As the densities of cities increases, it will be very difficult to accommodate a car for every traveller. That would seem to imply that bicycles will be part of the solution to urban air pollution and transport density problems.

Yes, there will be difficulties integrating bicycles with auto traffic. These are worth struggling through, in my view. The difficulties associated with ever-increasing auto traffic far exceed the difficulties with integrating cyclists in the traffic flow.

Segregation of bicycles from traffic seems to be the trend. What kind of integration did you have in mind? Refer to sunshine51's previous post showing what happens when segregation doesn't happen..

[DeepInTheForest]

Yes, there will be difficulties integrating bicycles with auto traffic. These are worth struggling through, in my view. The difficulties associated with ever-increasing auto traffic far exceed the difficulties with integrating cyclists in the traffic flow.

Segregation of bicycles from traffic seems to be the trend. What kind of integration did you have in mind? Refer to sunshine51's previous post showing what happens when segregation doesn't happen..

Yes, it is now popular to embrace bike lanes and curbs to differentiate the space used by bicycles versus motorized traffic. There are safety gains in such an arrangement. But let's be real. A complete segregation will never be possible-- how would people turn right or left? To rely entirely on segregation is unrealistic, I think. A better approach is to push for a combination of dedicated space, but also road-sharing as a norm. I think we can all get accustmed to it. And when numbers of cyclists increase, drivers as a whole become more aware of them. I've always thought that drivers should welcome bicyclists. After all, it means there are fewer other cars on the road to compete with, get into traffic jams with, take up parking spaces, etc.

Here's a post by someone named Julie (with edits) who is more eloquent and thoughtful on the topic than I am. She is obviously not writing about Thailand and its special challenges, but it's still worth a read:

A lot of people think a solution to bicycle-friendliness is to build more bike paths and bike lanes. A lot of other people... don’t really agree with this as a solution or a matter of policy. It all gets down to how one wishes to define the concept of ‘sharing the road.’

There are really three ways to approach bicycle facilities. The first is to have fully segregated facilities, where bicycles have their own place that is not part of the road. This is usually achieved via the construction of bicycle paths or sidepaths. The second is to have separated facilities. A separated facility is most often a striped bicycle lane on a roadway, designed to provide a specific pathway to a bicycle versus a motorized vehicle. The last approach is an integrated facility. This would be building wider lanes, traffic circles and roundabouts, and

roads using calming engineering strategies to provide for multiple types of road users without drawing boundaries.

If the true goal is to share the road and promote acceptance, integrated facilities have the most to offer. Other facilities maintain a separation between modes of transport, and can in fact promote ongoing ill-feeling between users of said modes.

For instance, bicycle lanes often promote a belief among motorists that bicycles should only be using streets with such striping, and that bicyclists must remain solely within the lines created by the lane striping. This is not only not in line with the rules of the road in many states, but often encourages unsafe bicycle ‘driving’ behavior as

many bicyclists share this belief. Poorly engineered bicycle lanes — and there are many — often place the bicyclist in a position to the right of a right-turning car if they maintain position in the bicycle lane, rather than moving into the ‘vehicular’ lane.

Sidepaths, as a fully separated facility, have a number of issues. First, they very frequently cross over numerous driveways and sidestreets in such a way that users of the path must be on special alert to avoid collision with right- or left-turning cars. Second, such sidepaths often occupy just one side of a roadway, which can promote

users of the sidepath travelling contrary to traffic flow on the road.

When a bicyclist is travelling counter to traffic, they are less visible. A right turning vehicle is going to look to their right for clearance, not ahead or to their left – which are both possible places for a sidepath user to be.

Bicycle paths can have some of the same issues as sidepaths, depending on their location and vision in development. Some bicycle paths are actually pretty acceptable from a cyclo-tourism perspective: They take people to places roads may not exist as such, except sometimes as unpaved country lanes. This may not suit a goal of bicycle as transportation, however, as an idea in transportation planning is to allow multi-modal users to access daily activities and destinations.

Both bicycle trails and sidepaths also have an additional associated hazard: They are shared with non-vehicular traffic. Whereas drivers on roads have specific rules and licensing, paths are shared with pedestrians, dogs, children, rollerbladers, and squirrels...

Many trails and sidepaths give users a false sense of security, rather than reinforcing what has been statstically shown again and again: Bicycles fare best when they share the road and are treated as vehicles. For some, the idea of being on a roadway with a vehicle can be scary. But if taught to use proper lane positioning, and to operate

according to the basic rules of traffic – not special rules – roadway use is safer than use of most paths and sidepaths. Sure, there are jerks on the road. There are jerks everywhere. We need to model our behavior

and transportation planning not around accomodating jerks, but accomodating the day-to-day needs of multiple modes of sustainable transportation.

http://www.rideboldly.org/2007/12/14/bicycle-facilities-issues/

[Robby nz]

Last week it was recycling now cycling.

Shouldnt cycling come first, how can you recycle if you haven't cycled in the first place?

Oh never mind

[MaxYakov]

Yes, there will be difficulties integrating bicycles with auto traffic. These are worth struggling through, in my view. The difficulties associated with ever-increasing auto traffic far exceed the difficulties with integrating cyclists in the traffic flow.

Segregation of bicycles from traffic seems to be the trend. What kind of integration did you have in mind? Refer to sunshine51's previous post showing what happens when segregation doesn't happen..

Yes, it is now popular to embrace bike lanes and curbs to differentiate the space used by bicycles versus motorized traffic. There are safety gains in such an arrangement. But let's be real. A complete segregation will never be possible-- how would people turn right or left? To rely entirely on segregation is unrealistic, I think. A better approach is to push for a combination of dedicated space, but also road-sharing as a norm. I think we can all get accustmed to it. And when numbers of cyclists increase, drivers as a whole become more aware of them. I've always thought that drivers should welcome bicyclists. After all, it means there are fewer other cars on the road to compete with, get into traffic jams with, take up parking spaces, etc.

Here's a post by someone named Julie (with edits) who is more eloquent and thoughtful on the topic than I am. She is obviously not writing about Thailand and its special challenges, but it's still worth a read:

A lot of people think a solution to bicycle-friendliness is to build more bike paths and bike lanes. A lot of other people... don’t really agree with this as a solution or a matter of policy. It all gets down to how one wishes to define the concept of ‘sharing the road.’

There are really three ways to approach bicycle facilities. The first is to have fully segregated facilities, where bicycles have their own place that is not part of the road. This is usually achieved via the construction of bicycle paths or sidepaths. The second is to have separated facilities. A separated facility is most often a striped bicycle lane on a roadway, designed to provide a specific pathway to a bicycle versus a motorized vehicle. The last approach is an integrated facility. This would be building wider lanes, traffic circles and roundabouts, and

roads using calming engineering strategies to provide for multiple types of road users without drawing boundaries.

If the true goal is to share the road and promote acceptance, integrated facilities have the most to offer. Other facilities maintain a separation between modes of transport, and can in fact promote ongoing ill-feeling between users of said modes.

For instance, bicycle lanes often promote a belief among motorists that bicycles should only be using streets with such striping, and that bicyclists must remain solely within the lines created by the lane striping. This is not only not in line with the rules of the road in many states, but often encourages unsafe bicycle ‘driving’ behavior as

many bicyclists share this belief. Poorly engineered bicycle lanes — and there are many — often place the bicyclist in a position to the right of a right-turning car if they maintain position in the bicycle lane, rather than moving into the ‘vehicular’ lane.

Sidepaths, as a fully separated facility, have a number of issues. First, they very frequently cross over numerous driveways and sidestreets in such a way that users of the path must be on special alert to avoid collision with right- or left-turning cars. Second, such sidepaths often occupy just one side of a roadway, which can promote

users of the sidepath travelling contrary to traffic flow on the road.

When a bicyclist is travelling counter to traffic, they are less visible. A right turning vehicle is going to look to their right for clearance, not ahead or to their left – which are both possible places for a sidepath user to be.

Bicycle paths can have some of the same issues as sidepaths, depending on their location and vision in development. Some bicycle paths are actually pretty acceptable from a cyclo-tourism perspective: They take people to places roads may not exist as such, except sometimes as unpaved country lanes. This may not suit a goal of bicycle as transportation, however, as an idea in transportation planning is to allow multi-modal users to access daily activities and destinations.

Both bicycle trails and sidepaths also have an additional associated hazard: They are shared with non-vehicular traffic. Whereas drivers on roads have specific rules and licensing, paths are shared with pedestrians, dogs, children, rollerbladers, and squirrels...

Many trails and sidepaths give users a false sense of security, rather than reinforcing what has been statstically shown again and again: Bicycles fare best when they share the road and are treated as vehicles. For some, the idea of being on a roadway with a vehicle can be scary. But if taught to use proper lane positioning, and to operate

according to the basic rules of traffic – not special rules – roadway use is safer than use of most paths and sidepaths. Sure, there are jerks on the road. There are jerks everywhere. We need to model our behavior

and transportation planning not around accomodating jerks, but accomodating the day-to-day needs of multiple modes of sustainable transportation.

http://www.rideboldly.org/2007/12/14/bicycle-facilities-issues/

Yes, Julie attempts to make a case for vehicle/bicycle integration, but did not cite the Netherlands example where a serious infrastructure effort was made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_the_Netherlands

I might also mention that the motto: RIDE BOLDLY! is very prominent on the site. What was that proverb about 'old, bold pilots'? Personally, I would prefer to take my chances with the squirrels, baby carriages, other bikes, etc. on a segregated bike path versus getting wiped-out from behind by a motor vehicle going at a good clip on a separated (so-called) integrated roadway.

The problem with integration is that the bicycles provide little crash protection and cannot maintain the speed of motor vehicles. Therefore, some different road rules apply to the bicycle, such as road positioning when sharing a road with motor vehicles. I agree with you, in general, that it is a big infrastructure design problem that will not be solved in Bangkok. Could it be considered a 'loss of face' by the Thai to trade car-time for bike-time?

Edited February 28, 2013 by MaxYakov

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

Bangkok is largely a lost cause when it comes to cycling.

The cities that have done it well have planned for it before the growth(i.e. Curitiba Brazil) or have citizens that largely follow laws like Holland or Japan.

The problem with Thailand is how would authorities keep a bicycling infrastructure free of motorbikes etc when the vast majority ignore laws.

It would be interesting if a newer city planned for bicycling before it was built and that might possibly educate people about the potentials.

Sadly Thai's are so rooted in tradition that new better ideas are rarely embraced.

[DeepInTheForest]

Yes, Julie attempts to make a case for vehicle/bicycle integration, but did not cite the Netherlands example where a serious infrastructure effort was made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_the_Netherlands

I might also mention that the motto: RIDE BOLDLY! is very prominent on the site. What was that proverb about 'old, bold pilots'? Personally, I would prefer to take my chances with the squirrels, baby carriages, other bikes, etc. on a segregated bike path versus getting wiped-out from behind by a motor vehicle going at a good clip on a separated (so-called) integrated roadway.

The problem with integration is that the bicycles provide little crash protection and cannot maintain the speed of motor vehicles. Therefore, some different road rules apply to the bicycle, such as road positioning when sharing a road with motor vehicles. I agree with you, in general, that it is a big infrastructure design problem that will not be solved in Bangkok. Could it be considered a 'loss of face' by the Thai to trade car-time for bike-time?

Thanks for your kind and thoughtful reply, and for actually looking at the link. Yes, Julie apparently is enamored of the "ride boldly" meme, which I don't endorse myself. I can't speak to that; my approach is to ride like the world is trying to kill you. Having said that, I think the points she makes in her piece are valid.

I don't think many bicyclists would argue against some kinds of bicycle infrastructure (although I can't speak for Julie!). I'm glad you brought up the Netherlands, because they have adopted a multi-pronged approach, as the article you cite in wikipedia makes clear. They do not simply rely on segregated bike lanes. Most importantly, they've bought in-- drivers as well as bicyclists. There are so many bicyclists that drivers have relatives and friends who are riding, or they may ride themselves. There is also a great deal of planning for bicycles when laying out roads and surface transport. And lanes are shared, as the following snippets, from wiki, illustrate:

Dutch drivers are trained for the interaction with cyclists, for example by checking and re-checking their right-hand side before making a turn to the right.

...Cycle lanes in the Netherlands, as they are in most countries, are situated at the nearside of the road (the right-hand side in the Netherlands). They are

marked by either a dashed line or a solid line. Lanes marked by a dashed line may be used by motorists provided that they do not impede cyclists. Those marked with a solid line may not be used by motorists. These solid lines are interrupted on crossings to allow motorists to enter or leave the road....

Cycle lanes are usually made in red or black concrete.

My point is that no system will ever completely eliminate bicycle-motorized vehicle sharing of roadway space. The Dutch have made bicycling easy via many mechanisms, not just segregated facilities. Your article says:

"Strict liability", supported in law in the Netherlands, leads to driver's insurance being deemed to be responsible in a collision between a car and a cyclist.

That's quite a game-changer. If we think that bicycles and autos are somehow incompatible and cannot be mixed, the Dutch have proven us wrong, in my view. And the key to their coexistence can't lie entirely with segregated facilities.

For a look at bike lanes in the Netherlands, I googled "Netherlands bike lanes".

https://www.google.com/search?q=netherlands+bike+lanes&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=8dm&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=WH8vUYWFMqaIygHGr4HQDg&ved=0CFkQsAQ&biw=1135&bih=683

Have a look. There are many places where space is shared.

Thailand is a long way from this kind of approach, but then so, at one time, was the Netherlands. Humans have undergone great changes in the past century-- in 1900, only 10% of us lived in cities. Now a majority of us do. If we wish to survive, the use of motor vehicles, so indispensable to cities, must at some point be limited. Gasoline will eventually run out, and biofuels cannot supply fuel for billions of autos. How will we move our food and goods around? How will we transport people to hospital? It would seem that the sooner we face our inevitable limitations, the happier our outcome.

Again, thanks for the discussion.

Edited February 28, 2013 by DeepInTheForest

[Thai at Heart]

Yes, there will be difficulties integrating bicycles with auto traffic. These are worth struggling through, in my view. The difficulties associated with ever-increasing auto traffic far exceed the difficulties with integrating cyclists in the traffic flow.

Segregation of bicycles from traffic seems to be the trend. What kind of integration did you have in mind? Refer to sunshine51's previous post showing what happens when segregation doesn't happen..

Yes, it is now popular to embrace bike lanes and curbs to differentiate the space used by bicycles versus motorized traffic. There are safety gains in such an arrangement. But let's be real. A complete segregation will never be possible-- how would people turn right or left? To rely entirely on segregation is unrealistic, I think. A better approach is to push for a combination of dedicated space, but also road-sharing as a norm. I think we can all get accustmed to it. And when numbers of cyclists increase, drivers as a whole become more aware of them. I've always thought that drivers should welcome bicyclists. After all, it means there are fewer other cars on the road to compete with, get into traffic jams with, take up parking spaces, etc.

Here's a post by someone named Julie (with edits) who is more eloquent and thoughtful on the topic than I am. She is obviously not writing about Thailand and its special challenges, but it's still worth a read:

A lot of people think a solution to bicycle-friendliness is to build more bike paths and bike lanes. A lot of other people... dont really agree with this as a solution or a matter of policy. It all gets down to how one wishes to define the concept of sharing the road.

There are really three ways to approach bicycle facilities. The first is to have fully segregated facilities, where bicycles have their own place that is not part of the road. This is usually achieved via the construction of bicycle paths or sidepaths. The second is to have separated facilities. A separated facility is most often a striped bicycle lane on a roadway, designed to provide a specific pathway to a bicycle versus a motorized vehicle. The last approach is an integrated facility. This would be building wider lanes, traffic circles and roundabouts, and

roads using calming engineering strategies to provide for multiple types of road users without drawing boundaries.

If the true goal is to share the road and promote acceptance, integrated facilities have the most to offer. Other facilities maintain a separation between modes of transport, and can in fact promote ongoing ill-feeling between users of said modes.

For instance, bicycle lanes often promote a belief among motorists that bicycles should only be using streets with such striping, and that bicyclists must remain solely within the lines created by the lane striping. This is not only not in line with the rules of the road in many states, but often encourages unsafe bicycle driving behavior as

many bicyclists share this belief. Poorly engineered bicycle lanes and there are many often place the bicyclist in a position to the right of a right-turning car if they maintain position in the bicycle lane, rather than moving into the vehicular lane.

Sidepaths, as a fully separated facility, have a number of issues. First, they very frequently cross over numerous driveways and sidestreets in such a way that users of the path must be on special alert to avoid collision with right- or left-turning cars. Second, such sidepaths often occupy just one side of a roadway, which can promote

users of the sidepath travelling contrary to traffic flow on the road.

When a bicyclist is travelling counter to traffic, they are less visible. A right turning vehicle is going to look to their right for clearance, not ahead or to their left which are both possible places for a sidepath user to be.

Bicycle paths can have some of the same issues as sidepaths, depending on their location and vision in development. Some bicycle paths are actually pretty acceptable from a cyclo-tourism perspective: They take people to places roads may not exist as such, except sometimes as unpaved country lanes. This may not suit a goal of bicycle as transportation, however, as an idea in transportation planning is to allow multi-modal users to access daily activities and destinations.

Both bicycle trails and sidepaths also have an additional associated hazard: They are shared with non-vehicular traffic. Whereas drivers on roads have specific rules and licensing, paths are shared with pedestrians, dogs, children, rollerbladers, and squirrels...

Many trails and sidepaths give users a false sense of security, rather than reinforcing what has been statstically shown again and again: Bicycles fare best when they share the road and are treated as vehicles. For some, the idea of being on a roadway with a vehicle can be scary. But if taught to use proper lane positioning, and to operate

according to the basic rules of traffic not special rules roadway use is safer than use of most paths and sidepaths. Sure, there are jerks on the road. There are jerks everywhere. We need to model our behavior

and transportation planning not around accomodating jerks, but accomodating the day-to-day needs of multiple modes of sustainable transportation.

http://www.rideboldly.org/2007/12/14/bicycle-facilities-issues/

Yes, Julie attempts to make a case for vehicle/bicycle integration, but did not cite the Netherlands example where a serious infrastructure effort was made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_the_Netherlands

I might also mention that the motto: RIDE BOLDLY! is very prominent on the site. What was that proverb about 'old, bold pilots'? Personally, I would prefer to take my chances with the squirrels, baby carriages, other bikes, etc. on a segregated bike path versus getting wiped-out from behind by a motor vehicle going at a good clip on a separated (so-called) integrated roadway.

The problem with integration is that the bicycles provide little crash protection and cannot maintain the speed of motor vehicles. Therefore, some different road rules apply to the bicycle, such as road positioning when sharing a road with motor vehicles. I agree with you, in general, that it is a big infrastructure design problem that will not be solved in Bangkok. Could it be considered a 'loss of face' by the Thai to trade car-time for bike-time?

Fabulous proposition. I look forward to them narrowing the CBD roads by 2 metres on each side

[MaxLee]

Bangkok drivers would get more frustrated, when the roads are filled with side-lane biker lanes,... I mean,... SOOOO FRUSTRATED, that they're just gonna run over them out of fury and anger without regard to Human life, just to get out of traffic jam...

Oh well....