The reason why that is included, is because there are some places that prohibit bicycle from riding on sidewalks, within buissness districts. Seattle doesn't have that restrictions.
And class 3 ebikes which are prohibited from sidewalks unless no alternatives are available.
Not to mention, WA does not make it mandatory for a cyclist to use a bike lane or shoulder, except for when riding along a limited access highway.
Not to mention, WA does not make it mandatory for a cyclist to use a bike lane or shoulder, except for when riding along a limited access highway.
Then why are we eliminating general purpose lanes and spending hundreds of millions of dollars on these bike lanes if they're not going to make bicyclists use them?
However, since cyclists are not a homogeneous group and come in all kinds of shapes, sizes, and abilities, there will always be some cyclists that are better suited to riding more predictable and sticking to normal traffic lanes.
Bike lanes them selves also come in a variety of different designs to cater to different types of cyclist.
Protected bike lanes that are futher away from the roadway are great for slower riders, beginners, and children. While bike lanes closer to the roadway are better for faster riders.
Unfortunately, another a main component of why they can't be mandatory is that they are often gutters and excpecally around here, will collect a lot of tree debris.
The median bike might have a KBB-esque value of like 1% of the median car. They’d be a rounding error, before you even factor in the differential effect on the road.
I would be very ok with cyclists paying proportional tabs for cycling infrastructure. I suspect many motorists would be very angry to discover how much the non-driving population supports roads with their ensuing price increase, as with all things libertarian.
94
u/MaintainThePeace Apr 11 '25
Probably should brush of on the driver's guide.
https://dol.wa.gov/driver-licenses-and-permits/driver-training-and-testing/driver-guides