Zagorath

How am I trolling for answering your concerns?

You’re not. You’re ignoring them. This was always a conversation about one thing and you insist on turning it into something else and you blame me for not going along with your offtopic nonsense. Piss off dickhead.

On the very, very slight chance that you’re genuinely confused and not being a dickhead, or for the benefit of any audience, this started with someone observing that maybe in this circumstance local traffic is genuinely being held up be people out for exercise. I pointed out that if you wanted to have fully separated paths for those users, you would need it to be just as wide as the road. Nowhere in there was I talking about anyone other than road bikers, because nowhere before that was anyone talking about anyone other than road bikers.

Then you came in and decided to shoehorn in an irrelevant topic. If we were talking about people riding on off-road trails, the solution would be obvious. So obvious it’s not really necessary to talk about it in an already un-motornormative space. Or at least, I try to assume that level of good faith from users here unless they prove otherwise.

I’m done with you. Go away troll.

you’re saying these trails need to be road wide

No, I’m saying in the context where the intended audience is road cyclists they would need to be road wide. The fact that you’re completely ignoring the context is what makes you an arsehole.

Are you seriously suggesting that trails should be built for one particular group of bikers?

No. And only an intentionally bad-faith reading of my comment could come away thinking it was.

I think this post clearly shows a picture of a sports cyclist, the post referenced a location with clear advertising aimed at attracting sports cyclists, and the discussion thread above makes it very unambiguously clear that we’re talking about sports cycling. One would have to be completely oblivious or wilfully ignorant to pretend otherwise.

As someone who does both sports cycling and transport cycling, I fucking hate it when people from one side act as though the other side doesn’t exist or is lesser than or not worth considering. The fuckwits who complain about “tour de france wanabees” while claiming to be cycling advocates are no better than NIMBYs complaining about their parking. We’re all on the same side here, and anyone who acts otherwise can fuck off as far as I’m concerned.

Road training is literally what we’re talking about here?

Facebook doesn’t give a shit either, and honestly they should be held liable if a cyclist is ever killed by someone who has ever left or read a comment like this one that Facebook chose not to take down. For the last couple of years, I’ve started keeping a log of all the comments I’ve reported on Facebook, and then updating that log if I get a notification that they took action. Very, very few have needed updating. Here’s my log of not removed comments:

And here are the ones they did remove:

Facebook actively encourages extreme violence.

A simple solution is to have extra wide bits where the topology allows it, with the width added to the uphill side of the road. Adding an unseparated bike lane on long straighter sections or round the bend is usually going to be sufficient for relatively low-speed mountain overtakes. What you should never do is encourage anyone to overtake a cyclist going downhill.

Here’s some examples from Australia:

You have a separate bike pathway/trail that twins the road

For this specific use case, that’s only a viable alternative if the separated bike path is just as wide as the road itself. Normal bike paths designed for cyclists commuting or otherwise transporting themselves can be half the width for a bi-directional cycleway as a single car lane, but for cyclists training in the hills, they need the road width to be able to take corners at speed safely.