Good Answer!

+1

People have all the right to go wherever they please at whatever time they please, but sometimes you read an article and just say "what the fuck were you thinking dude/dudette?"

Just turn around, call the cops and go another way.

That was my thinking too until I had a chance to test it in real life. Turns out a good shove from the side will knock over a cyclist even if she's going 20 ish mph.

If I had it to do over again, I would have turned around the second I thought something was suspicious.

as an engineer, i'm curious ... how did you test this? i'd have trouble setting up a test procedure. did you have a second person involved? i don't want this to turn into a flame war, so if you feel more comfortable pm'ing me, please do so.

thanks in advance

I don't see why you have to test this. It's pretty easy to crash your bike - just hit a decent rock at 20 mph you might very well go down. A shove would be worse than that.

I wasn't exactly a willing participant in the test. I was attacked on the LRT.

I know this is simplistic, but I believe the most effective short-term response to Greenway assaults is some sort of voluntary buddy system: strength in numbers. My mind wanders to smartphone apps and such, but logistically, it might be simplest and easiest if riders would just try to ride together in groups of three or more as much as possible, particularly in overnight hours and in sections of the Greenway that are particularly vulnerable. Even two is significantly better than one. I'm sure there are hoodlums who ride bikes themselves, but I think they're few and far between.

I completely understand that it's a problem that cyclists ride at different speeds and that it's the times of night where it's most difficult to find fellow riders where people are most in jeopardy. Nonetheless, I think anybody who has been attacked along the trail would see the value of it.

Over the longer term, I think better lighting in particular sections of the trail would help. In addition, and as much as I hate the idea in some Orwellian respects, I think it's almost inevitable that we're going to end up with security cameras along some, if not all, of the trail. I don't think there's much doubt that that would have a deterrent effect in addition to being a useful investigatory device.

Those are all things which are being looked into. Personally, I would like to redo the lighting on about 90% of the trail, because I hate those acorn fixtures that shine light right in my eyes. That may be a bit more than is possible, but the biggest problems are under the old bridges. That is a problem which will, fortunately, solve itself in time. As those bridges are replaced, the new bridges have very good lighting, and in time all the old bridges will be replaced.


Gabriel

hahahahaha +5

i don't touch the greenway south of bryant after dark, i find alternate routes.

Hmm, doesn't the Greenway go east, west?

whatever, mainly i just mean the "south" neighborhood.

That still doesn't make sense, though.

have you not heard of south minneapolis? that is what i am talking about. i don't touch anything before the nicolett/28th entrance at night.

Still confused.

Before, has no meaning in terms of direction of north south east west.

Remember the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. also remember "Never Eat Soggy Waffles" to help remember how the directions are laid out on the map.