Most of these people fit into one simple category – uneducated laborers – who have a vain superiority since their vehicle is the biggest on the road so they can intimidate not only vehicle traffic but cyclists as well – who they deem have no rights whatsoever.

Yelling “get on the sidewalk’ means exactly that – there is no gray area – they want you off the road.

I had drivers yell that to me as well – don’t forgot you’re up against morons that finished last (out of 50 states) in driver knowledge conducted by GMAC a few years ago. Until there is some sort of education program – perhaps a mandatory class when your license comes up for renewal – then these attitudes will fester.

Please. Been giving them help, hints, suggestions, urgent workarounds for over a decade, over 1,000 emails and letters, after riding about 80,000 on RI roads (all of them). A typical day in the saddle for me often exceeds 50 miles. Spoke before the TAC, to mayors, too. Little ever changes. I’ve told RIDOT director and intermodal chief and his staff that I have a map that shows every defect in the bikenet statewide. They are not interested, unless to explain why they can’t do anything.

Here’s their response: “Get a huge quorum of interested cyclists to agree, then we’ll talk.” As if cyclists agree on anything. Gave RIDOT an in depth survey of avid cyclist opinion, which was published on-line. Since when do they respond to public? Or even motorists? Neither these agencies nor government officials want to be told anything… except what a wonderful job they’re doing. Ha! The historic disconnect between constituency and government has never been so great.

I think the threat of being fired might shake up this complacent, do-nothing bureaucrats. They certainly can’t make roadnet any less friendly. It occurred to me today that they MUST IMMEDIATELY RESTORE SHOULDERS. These demon Toyodors need breakdown lanes into which not to stop and speed uncontrollably.

The two statements seem to contradict. Maybe this is one of the facts the other party disputed?

I guess it all comes down to perception. I don’t think motorists yelling “get on the sidewalk” are actively trying to scare cyclists, rather they are naive about the laws and truly believe that cyclists.

Let RIDOT know what their partners and contractors are up to.

SO they hire a California company to pick up trash and clean up Providence under the auspices of Downtown Providence & Providence Foundations etc…

Email the CEOs and COOs of all the parties.

I think Bike to Work day could use some partnership from such socially and environmentally conscious suits.

The two statements seem to contradict. Maybe this is one of the facts the other party disputed?

For my own peace of mind, I purchased a helmet camera – the kind people use with extreme sports (note that riding our roadways qualifies as extreme). I’ve mounted it to my bike helmet, and thus will have a record of exactly what happened should such a close encounter happen to me. I suppose if I’m ever bullied by a car I’ll have evidence to take to the police, perhaps even a clear video frame of the license plate.

Related, here are three situations to watch:
The Pawtucket Times reports that city has a $80,000 planning grant to redesign traffic patterns in downtown Pawtucket and it will “also look at pedestrian and bicycle access improvements” so this is an opportunity for someone who rides in that area.

On the other hand, the Standard Times (No. Kingstown) reports that construction of a new commuter train station in Wickford Junction may begin in May and though parking is prominently featured, there was no mention of bike (or transit) access, even though there is an abandoned rail corridor apparently in public ownership between Wickford Jct and Wickford. I hope local bike advocates will try to address this.

In contrast, we have seen that Warwick bike advocates have indeed proposed improving bike access to the new commuter rail station being built there, good for them! I hope to be able to help them get state support.

I’m all for making Elmwood more bikeable, and I understand that the only way to do so is to engage with RIDOT and express what we perceive the problems to be. It could be just as much that we need to engage with law enforcement to get speeds down, but road design can influence speeds very effectively at a one-time cost. Given the paucity of southbound routes that go all the way through, getting improvements on Elmwood would be great. Safer access to the west entrance of Roger Williams Park and Zoo would be awesome by itself.

Despite it being law, if no one takes the time to say what the problems are, there won’t be a change unless someone on the project is directly on the route, a cyclist or a regular pedestrian and transit user.

There will always be controversy with mixed road use. Some enlightened folks are willing to sacrifice cycling infrastructure along heaving motored routes for parallel, quieted bike boulevards. A good model used in Europe is a two-way bike-ped path on one side of road separated by barriers. Often they form linear tree-lined parks punctuated with cafes and shops. As it is, few here complain of bike bans on 25% of state’s roads, limited access highways, although they should immediately demand adjacent alternatives. Is Elmwood Ave a highway or slow secondary?

As I crossed Jamestown Bridge yesterday, was discussing this very topic with bus driver. He said no pedicyclist should try to cross in shoulder, but admitted that one-way riding/walking narrow walkways might be okay. Oh, they don’t have service on Sundays, because Newport’s RIPTA Barn in closed; poor excuse, since Narragansett is served from Providence. Out of luck, despite RIDOT’s 10-year-old promise to FHWA to make the cross from Newport to North Kingstown bike accessible. Don’t hold your breath while waiting hours/days for a ride across.

Which brings us to bike paths. After recent work, EBBP is in like-new, spectacular condition. There are still a few cross cracks in spots, and shells from sea birds cracking dinner, but not having ridden in a while, I noticed how nice it was, much better to ride than parallel roads, which I recently did. Makes it easier to get to Newport in 2 hours. Burma Road, on the other hand, was much more tiring, seemingly all up hill Southbound. Yet it doesn’t need a bike path, since traffic is light. I’d much rather see a bike route on the island’s central ridge, which would be flatter and more direct. Turnpike Ave’s 2 lanes are fine, as is, but when you get to Quaker Hill, suddenly 4 lanes without a shoulder, traffic is merciless, esp. school busses. A bike path alongside would work; there’s even part of a feral sidewalk.

In contrast, West Bay is difficult and unpleasant from Wickford Northbound. I once advocated an on-street route supplemented with a few short bikeway segments that would have directly connected Wickford to WSBP. Town officials aren’t interested. They even kyboshed a short segment paralleling Rt 102 form proposed train station to dockside. Seems they suffer from the same one-mule-town obstinacy as Smithfield. Rather see a parallel to Rt 1, which not only violates law but is seriously dangerous to both motorists and pedicyclists all the way to Warwick.

After freely consulting RIDOT and Warwick’s mayor’s office, then being told otherwise, Greenwich Ave was restriped to REMOVE shoulders. This eliminated the last decent route to traverse Warwick, RI’s flattest city yet the most bike unfriendly in tristate area. They laugh it off; means nothing to them. Only lawsuits can remove those smirks.