yeah right.

That'd be a great move.

as soon as they put bikes lanes on the street, that means that drivers will think that bikes _must_ ride in the lanes (instead of in the street where they belong) and just give them more "justification" for driving like completely ignorant cocks.

I think bike lanes are great as a symbolic gesture, but they're not very practical and possibly more dangerous than just riding in the road.

I'd love for any one of those proposed ideas to happen (right now it's all talk). To be fair, the city has done a nice job of (very very slowly) working to connect the Alum Creek Trail to Three Creeks.

However, their biggest expense in the past year was probably building that stupid Olentangy Trail bridge which is less than a mile from the 161 bridge. Can someone please help me understand this project and why folks couldn't just ride less than a mile to 161 to cross the river?

yes - bikes are vehicles on the road and subject to regular vehicle rules.

I always at least slow down if on a back road and no one is at the intersection, and generally stop at intersections. What I hated was when cars did not realize I had the right of way going straight and they turn left into me.

...yet another reason you should sell your Land Rover?

I just learned a new acronym: PZEV. Didn't know Ford was onto PZEV's yet.

Land Rovers are zero emission about half the time. while they're in the shop.