Originally Posted by
danarnold
You state the exact opposite of what I said, then ridicule that opinion you made up. What is the purpose of such rhetoric?
I stated that that IF MUPS, sidewalk riding and bike lanes results in fewer cyclists on the roads in regular traffic, that will only encourage motorists in their mistaken belief that the roads are for them only. What is it about unintended consequences you do not understand?
OK I have not been a part of this conversation, but I wish to interject something here... motorists already feel that bikes don't belong and the roadway designers tend to reinforce that mindset by continuing to design roadways as if pedestrian and cyclist traffic doesn't matter. The unintended consequences are already there... so how about when such designs are made (such as 50+MPH roads with high speed merges) they should also include provisions for cyclists. Otherwise... such roads do not belong anywhere except for limited access freeways.
The more a roadway resembles a freeway, the less the general cycling public is going to feel comfortable using it. Yes, I agree that this all perpetuates the myth that cyclists don't belong, but "forcing" cyclists to use such roadways is NOT going to foster good will with either motorists nor the general cycling public... only the boldest and bravest cyclists will use such roads.... thus limiting cycling to "the choir," while eliminating "the congregation."