Map of California roads for cyclers (1895)
11 comments
·January 11, 2025supernova87a
If there's one thing to admire/observe about old advertisements or documents like this (aside from the cycling-specific content), it's how much in a previous age, people publicly put their names behind the content and claims. Company names, schedules, assertions of opinion/fact, signed with someone's actual name.
Not like some website where you hardly know what the name is supposed to mean, or who in virtual land you're submitting information and payment to.
glaucon
Interesting, I wonder what the red lettering (PH, FR, PL etc) beside the red tracks indicate ? I wonder if it is some indication of the nature of the road.
bryanlarsen
There's a legend in the upper right of the map. good/fair/poor/very-poor level/rolling/hilly/mountainous
ChiefNotAClue
This is beautiful. Thank you for sharing. Especially the border artwork–the level of detail in some of the sketches, the choice to use plants to tie in the advertisements together. Definitely from a different era.
freed0mdox
Can someone please explain to me why we chose to treat one mode of transportation as the most privileged?
- Pedestrians are expected to yield to cyclists (de facto)
- Motorists are expected to yield to cyclists
- Cyclists can choose to bike at a slow pace on a busy highway, taking up the whole lane (motorists will be cited for impeding traffic)
- They are allowed to bike on the road at night with barely any visibility aids
- They aren't required to have liability insurance or pass any traffic exams
- The police is very lax about enforcing traffic laws for them
I am all for a good bike ride in the mountains, where there is no traffic, but surely the way we treat cyclists is unreasonable?
doug_durham
What an odd perspective. Bicycles and Automobiles are treated the same in the law. They have the same rights and obligations. Please provide a citation that says that a car has to yield to a bicycle. They are peers. Cars have to follow the same rules that bicycles do when they choose to be on the public roads. There are some commonsense laws that allow bicycles to ride on the shoulder of a road to allow traffic to flow better. I have seen bicyclists be cited for traffic violations on multiple occasions. I've seen automobiles not be cited for violations many more times.
fooblaster
In the United States we do treat one form of transport as the most privileged, the automobile.
We force places of business to build parking, forcing lower density, and higher cost to business. We build many neighborhoods without sidewalks at all, and with no bike access, forcing pedestrians and cyclists out of dedicated lanes and into traffic where they need to contend with multi ton SUVs. We do not penalize against designing vehicles with extremely poor visibility and excessive height, which directly translates to fatalities of those not in an armored shell on the roadway.
I would strongly encourage you to read more about building our cities and towns not directly around the automobile. We need to build around people, and bikes, and not strictly around the car.
Metacelsus
Can someone please explain to me why we chose to treat one mode of transportation as the most privileged?
- Motorists are provided with massive road construction subsidies
- Motorists are provided with government-mandated parking spaces
- When a motorist hits and kills a cyclist or pedestrian, punishments are usually laxer than for other forms of manslaughter
- Public spaces and shopping areas are designed with motorists in mind
- Zoning layout of cities and suburbs presumes car ownership
- Environmental costs of driving are paid by society at large
I am all for a good drive at NASCAR, but surely the way we treat motorists is unreasonable?
fooblaster
Well said!
Retric
A lot of cyclist rules are designed around kids.
Thus zero licensing requirements etc.
Related, California Cycleway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Cycleway#:~:text=Th....