Type: Posts; User: hagen2456; Keyword(s):
It most certainly isn't a good place to put lights.
Nah. It's just that lots of streets don't have room for it. Most cyclists here actually prefer them, and there's no statistic telling that they're particularly dangerous.
The ramps do form a...
Land use and mega stores could be an explanation. It is in smaller Danish cities.
All very fine and dandy - except for the fact that they don't have "Dutch-style segregation" in very many parts of Germany. Segregation, maybe - Dutch-style? HA!
Munich is a very nice example of...
Your dad made a very conservative guess. As half of any given large population is gifted with an IQ below 100, there's bound to be quite a few very stupid people out there who have still managed to...
Well, there IS, after all, the basic fact that cars are more dangerous to their surroundings than are bikes, no matter what.
For pedestrians, yes.
Though I wouldn't put it that way, I must say that at least on the day the video was made, there was more than enough room for going quite fast - at least a good deal faster than shown in the video....
I'm not sure I get what you mean, but we do have both separated and non-separated bike paths. The difference is minimal, as parking is not allowed closer than, like, 30 m from the intersections (and...
The photos showing the narrow street with a bike lane on one side (because it's a one-way street where cars are not allowed to go all through, and with bike traffic in both directions)... that's a...
You're wrong, and if you had been awake to read through this and the many other threads I've participated in, you'd full well know it.
Now back to bed, mr. Forester!
No "tons of in road bike lanes". Mostly, it's either bike path or nothing. The ones you show are from the experimental stage of partly closing down that street to car traffic and widening the bike...
I think there are a couple of misunderstandings on the side of the VC crowd. First there's the matter of the danger associated with separated bike paths. Yes, there are potential dangers, but they...
You really, REALLY need to start reading things a little more thoroughly.
Hembrow took the time to break down the numbers and puncture some of the hot air ballons:
Only to someone who is consumed with hatred for bike paths, it seems.
Apollored is from Manchester. I gather that's Manchester, England, and not USA. Hence, "pavement" = "sidewalk" ;)
Jan Heine, in the comments to his first article on bike paths:
"I think you misunderstand. I agree that infrastructure can be good, but it needs to be applied with good judgment. What I see here...
You apparently didn't read the whole article, including his own comments below it.
Dear me, you really are a demagogue.
I find it interesting that mr. Heine does not mention that I pointed out that the most quoted paper on the net regarding bike path safety does not say what the authors and most other people think. It...
You misquoted. That's what I pointed out. And that misquote made a very large difference to the meaning. Thus, you created a straw man.
And increased safety.
We are probably not THAT far from each other, if we don't count the safety of well executed separated paths and their ability to increase biking. You are certainly right...
Interesting. Bek wrote "shows him to be quite the proponent of context specific design including cycletracks!"
Where did that "design" go when you quoted, eh?
That is probably true. And a good starting point.