Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819
Results 451 to 467 of 467
  1. #451
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    West Coast
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    23,890
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kob22225 View Post
    The best political process is one that has everybody solving the same problems in the same place.... not slicing and dicing the problem with segregationist design ideas.

    I want it to become well recognized in design circles that there is no such beast as 'well designed' sidepath.

    As a pedestrian I do not want vehicle drivers - even if just the sub-class of bicyclist vehicle drivers - invited onto pedestrian part of travel corridor design. I also don't want them on specialized pedestrian dedicated corridor - when this specialized limited corridor design is used in the appropriately very rare places, typical the occasional recreation-related facility (though 'greenways' done WAY less than they are now done as parts of our recreation infrastructure.) Therefore I oppose "MUP's" whether 'well designed' or not.
    Having seen the ultimate in MUP systems in Oulu Finland... I have to wholly disagree with you regarding MUPs.

    See this: Bike heaven... or close.

    Since you and few other Americans have seen this system... and you are no doubt basing your decisions on what you have encountered here in the US; I can understand your doubts. However, let me assure you that a well designed MUP system can be both fun to ride, and quite effective.

    The issues of segregation that so many VC cyclists seem to get all excited about were quite the opposite in Oulu, where the bicycle had the favored route and the motor car was given the longer secondary route.

    The MUP system in Oulu (I was assured it was like this all over Finland) is well beyond any typical "park type recreation" MUP you have ever encountered here in the US.
    Last edited by genec; 01-17-09 at 09:15 AM.

  2. #452
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gorham ME
    Posts
    142
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    OK here is reality.... http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...twood-phy.html

    Far from your world, eh?
    No, bad incidents happen in my world too. However the VAST majority of the time things like:

    http://gallery.mac.com/kob22225#1000...r=black&sel=69
    http://cascobaybicycleclub.org/picnic_2005.html

    happen there.
    Last edited by kob22225; 01-17-09 at 09:44 AM.

  3. #453
    -=Barry=- The Human Car's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
    Posts
    4,077
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kob22225 View Post
    Seriously. It looks like what it is: With increasing popularity of bicycling as an activity locally, there is a greater call for special facility placement locally.
    Which in turn increases popularity of bicycling. I believe it's a cycle.
    Cycling Advocate
    http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
    . . . o
    . . /L
    =()>()

  4. #454
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gorham ME
    Posts
    142
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Human Car View Post
    Which in turn increases popularity of bicycling. I believe it's a cycle.
    No. The first turn of the crank creates the same amount of bicycling that would have happened anyway, with the addition of an infrastructure saddled with illogical design that re-enforces the existing ignorance of the population about best practice roadway bicycling.
    Last edited by kob22225; 01-17-09 at 10:00 AM.

  5. #455
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gorham ME
    Posts
    142
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post
    The issues of segregation that so many VC cyclists seem to get all excited about were quite the opposite in Oulu, where the bicycle had the favored route and the motor car was given the longer secondary route.
    How about the fact that I am not interested in giving _anybody_ a longer secondary route? I want maximum equity and sense, developed in the political process of an open society. You get that when you have everybody attempting to solve the same problems in the same places.
    Last edited by kob22225; 01-17-09 at 10:00 AM.

  6. #456
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    West Coast
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    23,890
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kob22225 View Post
    How about the fact that I am not interested in giving _anybody_ a longer secondary route? I want maximum equity and sense, developed in the political process of an open society. You get that when you have everybody attempting to solve the same problems in the same places.


    Great... then have motorists travel at cyclist speeds, and said equality will be reached.

  7. #457
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gorham ME
    Posts
    142
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post


    Great... then have motorists travel at cyclist speeds, and said equality will be reached.
    Pointless. I don't advocate for pointless limits.

  8. #458
    Senior Member Febs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ridley Park, PA
    Posts
    422
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec View Post


    Great... then have motorists travel at cyclist speeds,
    Perhaps for short distances, until they can pass safely.

    I honestly can't understand you genec. Have you not on many occasions championed the idea of traffic calming?

  9. #459
    -=Barry=- The Human Car's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
    Posts
    4,077
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kob22225 View Post
    No. The first turn of the crank creates the same amount of bicycling that would have happened anyway, with the addition of an infrastructure saddled with illogical design that re-enforces the existing ignorance of the population about best practice roadway bicycling.
    The bold is what I really have issues with. My experience bike lanes really get people coming out of the wood work even those home owners who fought against bike lanes.
    Cycling Advocate
    http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
    . . . o
    . . /L
    =()>()

  10. #460
    ---- buzzman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,560
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kob22225 View Post
    Death _statistics_ is a much smaller number problem then injuries, and has a completely different cause profile. Do you have the full table of raw numbers? I happen to have it for 1988 age group and sex. We can compare. I suspect if we look at it over the years what would control would be changes of exposure to the activity over that time period.
    I'm not sure exactly what your implication is in this post. Are you inferring that the greater death rate of cyclists age 45-54 is due to greater exposure to the activity over that time period?

    If that is the case how does the "age, maturity and experience" of the cyclist factor into the equation? Since greater exposure to the activity would translate into into more experience.

    Also, it depends on how we define the "activity" if the selected age group (45-54) rides predominantly on the road and in a fashion dictated by the traffic laws they have learned and adhered to (to some degree) as road users in autos then it is exposure to that activity in that manner.

    It would be interesting to correlate cyclist deaths in that same age group between cyclists who ride in a strictly vehicular fashion and traveling on existing highway infrastructure with cyclists riding almost exclusively on MUP's and roads with bike lanes and with cyclists riding on existing infrastructure but not necessarily in a "vehicular manner".

    My guess, and I do not have the data to substantiate this (though the NYC bike study supports my guess), would be that the cyclists using MUP's and bike lanes would be the least represented in the death rate for this age group.

    I've selected a bunch of quotes of yours that "in my decades of bumping around the bicycling world" have become so oft repeated, in exactly the same way and have been so disproved again and again and again and again but still there are some "cyclists" who adhere to these dogmas and tie up any discussion of progressive thinking with their allegiance to the strength of the closed mind necessary to make these statements.

    Using the hot button words like "sidepath" and "segregationist" are practically humorous to me at this point.

    I point these out, not necessarily for kob's benefit (I doubt my words will budge him an inch) but to those who might be reading and genuinely looking for ways of making cycling better for as many of us as possible. How will cycling progress if all bike advocates engaged in this kind of lockstep "thinking"?

    every bikelane is a bad design.
    there is no such beast as 'well designed' sidepath.
    I oppose "MUP's" whether 'well designed' or not
    segregationist design ideas.
    This last point feels to me to be irresponsible advocacy and not thought through:

    I advocate that bicyclist have reasonable, equitably convenient access to every location society has built public infrastructure to serve. As a practical matter, that starts with some targeted lifting of bans - most typically across a bunch of bridges - whether those bridges happen to be freeway bridges or not. This also could target a whole slew of places where bicyclist are allowed on one entrance ramp, and then off at the next exit ramp they reach along freeway.
    If there is any place that bicyclists may need extra accommodations and infrastructure it is on bridges. Bridges tend to be narrow lanes and no shoulders, often have metal grating for drainage and expansion, are exposed to the elements particularly wind and freezing of the road surface.


    KOB, I get the sense from your posts that you are primarily a recreational cyclist, who tours and club rides and not in a densely packed urban environment. From that perspective alone much of what you say makes some sense but it demands that all persons who use a bike use a bike in the manner to which you have become accustomed. I, too, could be considered a recreational rider and raced and did club riding for years but I commute on an MUP almost daily in an urban environment (Boston), I also commute with a folding bike on trains to NYC and ride the bike infrastructure-happily- there. But I do lots of road rides including several centuries and double centuries and tours every year and I use primarily the road system but I select the roads I ride very carefully for those rides.

    You've made the comment that you've never seen a cyclist become "less vehicular" over time. In my case, I've grown more and more fond of using bike paths, lanes and MUP's over time. I often incorporate them into my tours and recreational rides (often at a relatively high avg speed) and use them for transportation and commuting whenever possible.

    Your stern opposition to such facilities means you would advocate for something that many of us use every day and with great satisfaction. Simply read the commuting forum for a while to see how many commuters use an MUP for the full portion or part of their commute. You would advocate for less of that??!

    And as Human Car rightly points out, naturally, a certain percentage of bike riders, with the energy to advocate for infrastructure must be in place before a locality will build infrastructure but then the infrastructure encourages larger numbers of people to participate than would have other wise. This is exactly what changed the profile in NYC from a distinctly unfriendly biking environment to one that is becoming more and more accommodating. It took some real stalwart cycling advocates a lot of years of persistent effort to make the changes that now have more NY'ers cycling than ever.

    IMO your advocacy efforts have a place, you offer a voice for a percentage of riders but most certainly not for all riders. Would it be possible for someone like you to see how you could be more of a value to the cycling community as group by making fewer blanket statements about infrastructure? If you put less energy in standing as an impasse to the efforts being made by those of us who support it in some cases and more into your obvious interest in existing road infrastructure and making it a safer place to ride you'd make a good ally but by ruling it out entirely you simply become another impediment to progress.

  11. #461
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gorham ME
    Posts
    142
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    I'm not sure exactly what your implication is in this post. Are you inferring that the greater death rate of cyclists age 45-54 is due to greater exposure to the activity over that time period?
    Could you get me the full data table and dates you are talking about please? Then we could continue a discussion on this detailed point. I will enter the 1988 table at end of this email.

    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    My guess, and I do not have the data to substantiate this (though the NYC bike study supports my guess), would be that the cyclists using MUP's and bike lanes would be the least represented in the death rate for this age group.
    Again, deaths of bicyclist occur at about at roughly 1/1000th the rate bicyclist injuries that need a hospital visit, and about 1/100th the rate at which bicyclist injuries that need a hospital visit from a collision with a motor vehicle. So death rates are a relatively low number problem with cause profiles that look nothing like the larger number injuries... and much harder to get meaningful stats versus qualitative measures of degree of vehicular behavior when riding roadways.

    My best guess is a good scientific study will never find significant difference in death rates versus almost _anything_ acutely related to bikelanes specifically..



    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    I've selected a bunch of quotes of yours that "in my decades of bumping around the bicycling world" have become so oft repeated, in exactly the same way and have been so disproved again and again and again and again
    Could you break this up a little please?

    Please list the quote, then immediately follow that quote with the case that 'disproves" it. Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    Using the hot button words like "sidepath" and "segregationist" are practically humorous to me at this point.
    Could you expand on the 'hotbutton' nature of sidepath? I don't follow that one.

    Your other one... fair enough. If you give me a word other than 'segregationist' that gets across the clearly segregationist conceots by both travel corridor and by area on roadway ideas involved in much of present bicyclist and pedestrian advocacy - a word that gets the ideas across with some emphasis, yet in no way echos the sounds of admitedly MUCH more important social/racial issues - I will use it. However, please note how hard it is to come up with that appropriate meaning and a certain amount of emphasis, without using that word.... Get me a working word for this discussion so it doesn't sound like I think I'm MLK, believe me I will use it.

    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    This last point feels to me to be irresponsible advocacy and not thought through:
    I'm not following where you think I'm being irresponsible. Could you run that one by me again with some detail? Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    If there is any place that bicyclists may need extra accommodations and infrastructure it is on bridges. Bridges tend to be narrow lanes and no shoulders, often have metal grating for drainage and expansion, are exposed to the elements particularly wind and freezing of the road surface.
    I don't ride shoulders. I'm about 2-3' wide. Shoulders and width aren't a bicyclist's issue.

    Yes, expansion joint engineering and design could use some work. Perhaps this could be a place for some targeted bicyclist advocacy pushing.

    All users face the same ice conditions. Riding where heavier traffic tracks tends to reduce my problem on that count. I can't imagine any reasonable extra special wind-related engineering needed by bicyclists if 18 wheelers manage... But I will listen to a _good_ case made that there is some extra special dangers bicyclist face on this count and a reasonable engineering thing to add to address it. All the years of riding over bridges, usually in or very near the normal travel lane, not a big big deal.

    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    KOB, I get the sense from your posts that you are primarily a recreational cyclist, who tours and club rides and not in a densely packed urban environment.
    I think you need to go back and read my posts. That is not accurate characterization.

    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    You've made the comment that you've never seen a cyclist become "less vehicular" over time. In my case, I've grown more and more fond of using bike paths, lanes and MUP's over time. I often incorporate them into my tours and recreational rides (often at a relatively high avg speed) and use them for transportation and commuting whenever possible.
    Two points

    1) I have not witnessed you over time.

    2) This doesn't mean your behavior on public roadways has become less vehicular.

    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    Your stern opposition to such facilities means you would advocate for something that many of us use every day and with great satisfaction. Simply read the commuting forum for a while to see how many commuters use an MUP for the full portion or part of their commute. You would advocate for less of that??!
    I would advocate for a culture that understands bicyclist fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. I would advocate for public expenditures consistent with that understanding. As a pedestrian I would advocate against bicyclists being encourage to use what should be left pedestrian facilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    IMO your advocacy efforts have a place, you offer a voice for a percentage of riders but most certainly not for all riders. Would it be possible for someone like you to see how you could be more of a value to the cycling community as group by making fewer blanket statements about infrastructure?
    I'm making detailed statements and explaining why that is the point of view I support. I don't see the 'blanket.'

    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    If you put less energy in standing as an impasse to the efforts being made by those of us who support it in some cases and more into your obvious interest in existing road infrastructure and making it a safer place to ride you'd make a good ally but by ruling it out entirely you simply become another impediment to progress.
    The triage-important safety issue for bicycling is mostly about bicyclist behavior and very little about 'place' (to the degree there is an bicycling specific place element, that is mostly about the surface condition of the place and not its width.) Therefore, I believe I _am_ directing my effort properly to address safety, within the context of 'bicycling' as part of a wiser sound overall transportation system.

    Here are a few random 'impasse' unblocking suggestion right back at you:

    1) Fight any and all mandatory bikelane usage law.

    2) Fight any and all code that turns destination positioning principles on their heads.

    3) Stop advocating for bikelanes. *required to unblock the impasse*

    3a) Start explaining why bikelane design is foolish nonsense. *optional*
    Last edited by kob22225; 01-17-09 at 03:02 PM.

  12. #462
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gorham ME
    Posts
    142
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    While again noting that injuries are ~ X1000 number and injuries from collision with motor vehicle is 100X problem versus fatalities, with a totally different cause profile, and a potentially somewhat different age and sex breakdown:

    1988 Bicyclist Fatalities by Age and Sex, FARS and NCHS
    Age FARS-M FARS-F FARS-T NCHS-M NCHS-F NCHS-T
    <1 0 0 0 0 0 0
    1-4 11 4 15 12 6 18
    5-9 130 29 159 128 30 158
    10-14 157 30 187 157 29 186
    15-19 117 12 129 124 12 136
    20-24 72 12 84 75 11 86
    25-34 100 14 114 107 20 127
    35-44 71 9 80 74 12 86
    45-54 38 8 46 40 9 49
    55-64 26 4 30 28 7 35
    65+ 46 5 51 66 4 70
    Unknown 5 1 6 2 0 2
    Last edited by kob22225; 01-17-09 at 04:33 PM.

  13. #463
    -=Barry=- The Human Car's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
    Posts
    4,077
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kob22225 View Post
    How about the fact that I am not interested in giving _anybody_ a longer secondary route? I want maximum equity and sense, developed in the political process of an open society. You get that when you have everybody attempting to solve the same problems in the same places.
    The problem I have with this is cyclists gravitate to one set of roads and motorists to anther set of roads and often when they intersect both groups there is a lot of contention. As more of the road network becomes congested the more motorists want to turn slow speed cycle routes into high speed short cuts.

    If I were to agree with what you are saying I would need first:
    • Motorists to "play" nice with cyclists
    • Motorists to obey the speed limit (none of the +15mph or 85% rule junk)
    Cycling Advocate
    http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
    . . . o
    . . /L
    =()>()

  14. #464
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Gorham ME
    Posts
    142
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Human Car View Post
    The problem I have with this is cyclists gravitate to one set of roads and motorists to anther set of roads and often when they intersect both groups there is a lot of contention. As more of the road network becomes congested the more motorists want to turn slow speed cycle routes into high speed short cuts.
    I'm lost on this claim: I say I promote the overarching idea that each and every corridor should be used by each and every mode and each and every vehicle type... and you say that leads to self-segregation of modes and vehicle types? Sorry does not compute.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Human Car View Post
    If I were to agree with what you are saying I would need first:
    • Motorists to "play" nice with cyclists
    • Motorists to obey the speed limit (none of the +15mph or 85% rule junk)
    Motorists not 'playing nice' has never been an major issue for me, though I ride whatever road I come to every day, for whatever purpose I am out for that day.

    Motorist speed has also never been a major issue for me. I go my speed. They goes theirs, as modified by the conditions that exist at specific time and place.

    My facilities issues have been essentially all surface condition related. I _would_ like if racks were better designed and mass transit had better wheel-on facilities... But hopefully that will improve over time.

    My behavior complaints against other users are per-capita much worse against other bicyclists rather than against motorists. Since there are SO many more motorists, my _total_ problems with motorists over the years have summed to some what more than against bicyclists... But those problems have never amounted to something that overrode the typical joy of my day-in-day-out bicycling on roadways... urban, suburban, rural.
    Last edited by kob22225; 01-17-09 at 07:39 PM.

  15. #465
    ---- buzzman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,560
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kob22225 View Post
    Could you get me the full data table and dates you are talking about please? Then we could continue a discussion on this detailed point. I will enter the 1988 table at end of this email.
    NHTSA 2007 Report
    Quote Originally Posted by kob22225 View Post
    My best guess is a good scientific study will never find significant difference in death rates versus almost _anything_ acutely related to bikelanes specifically..
    Quote Originally Posted by NYC Bike Report
    Although there are many more miles of local roads, more than half of fatal crashes occurred on arterial (large,four lane) roads (53%).
    7% of fatal crashes occurred on limited access highways, where bicycling is prohibited.

    Only one fatal crash with a motor vehicle occurred when a bicyclist was in a marked bicycle lane.
    You might want to read this report in it's entirety: NYC Bike Report 1996-2005


    Quote Originally Posted by kob22225 View Post
    Could you expand on the 'hotbutton' nature of sidepath? I don't follow that one.
    In the early 70's there were several poorly designed implementations of "sidepaths". These notoriously bad designs crossed driveways, intersections and parking lots with disastrous results. Most contemporary road designers are aware of the shortcomings of these paths, which basically amounted to a sidewalk and they are seldom considered useful. However, the term "side path" can also be used to describe a perfectly legitimate bike path or MUP that runs alongside a road or highway. Infrastructure opponents often use the term "side path" because it still carries that negative connotation. Perhaps you did not intend it in that way but many of the hard core VC crowd tout it in that fashion.

    Quote Originally Posted by kob22225 View Post
    Your other one... fair enough. If you give me a word other than 'segregationist' that gets across the clearly segregationist conceots by both travel corridor and by area on roadway ideas involved in much of present bicyclist and pedestrian advocacy - a word that gets the ideas across with some emphasis, yet in no way echos the sounds of admitedly MUCH more important social/racial issues - I will use it. However, please note how hard it is to come up with that appropriate meaning and a certain amount of emphasis, without using that word.... Get me a working word for this discussion so it doesn't sound like I think I'm MLK, believe me I will use it.
    Since "segregationist" cycle facilities is a term used almost exclusively by opponents of infrastructure you could look at the terms used by people who design or are open minded enough to consider them. Those terms include "separated cycle lanes", "off-street" facilities, MUP's, bike paths, trails. They tend to be specific rather than lumping together all of them as "segregationist". Not that hard now was it?

    Quote Originally Posted by kob22225 View Post
    I don't ride shoulders. I'm about 2-3' wide. Shoulders and width aren't a bicyclist's issue.
    well, good for you! But I sometimes do ride on shoulders. As do many other cyclists. So not only do you not want me riding on MUP's, bike paths or in bike lanes but you would have me not ride in a shoulder if I find it preferable?

    Quote Originally Posted by kob22225 View Post
    Yes, expansion joint engineering and design could use some work. Perhaps this could be a place for some targeted bicyclist advocacy pushing.

    All users face the same ice conditions. Riding where heavier traffic tracks tends to reduce my problem on that count. I can't imagine any reasonable extra special wind-related engineering needed by bicyclists if 18 wheelers manage... But I will listen to a _good_ case made that there is some extra special dangers bicyclist face on this count and a reasonable engineering thing to add to address it. All the years of riding over bridges, usually in or very near the normal travel lane, not a big big deal.
    Are you serious?!! I'll name a few bridges and I challenge you to ride over any one of them by taking the lane on a windy, rainy or icy day- The Bourne Bridge on Cape Cod, The Sagamore Bridge on Cape Cod, The Golden Gate Bridge. Granted 18 wheelers struggle in a tough wind but man, I've crossed some bridges and been forced to dismount and walk the winds were so strong. I've yet to see a truck driver walk a truck over a bridge due to a high wind. What size tires are you riding that go over the metal grating so easily in the ice?

    Quote Originally Posted by kob22225 View Post
    The triage-important safety issue for bicycling is mostly about bicyclist behavior and very little about 'place' (to the degree there is an bicycling specific place element, that is mostly about the surface condition of the place and not its width.
    I have no idea how you've drawn this "conclusion". (though you get points for stating it as if it were a "fact".) Not that cyclist behavior does not account for a substantial percentage of accidents but certainly not enough to warrant such minimal emphasis on infrastructure.

  16. #466
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    West Coast
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    23,890
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kob22225 View Post
    Pointless. I don't advocate for pointless limits.
    It was as pointless as your original statement... motorists going a longer path but at greater speeds, experience no more delays than cyclists going a shorter route.

    Equality, in the examples I gave, exists in the overall experience... whether the exact same road is used or not.

  17. #467
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    West Coast
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    23,890
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Febs View Post
    Perhaps for short distances, until they can pass safely.

    I honestly can't understand you genec. Have you not on many occasions championed the idea of traffic calming?
    Yes... doesn't that traffic calming then result in motorists moving at a speed that is more conducive to the "equality" that was mentioned by kob22225?
    Last edited by genec; 01-18-09 at 08:23 AM.

Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •