Originally Posted by Mr. Miskatonic
I don't really care how much you sugar coat it: The driver is suggesting that the bike does not belong on the road, and should use seperate, but not neccessarily equal facilities. Covering it with a bunch of alleged 'safety concerns' does not hide the underlying premise: Get off the road, biker. The use of the terms "anguish" and "hinder cars" pretty much spell it out.
As I mentioned in my top thread, I have had people 'inform me' of a bike path (MUT, actually) I should use that was far away...and dangerous. I know all about it, it is simply something I choose not to use. I wonder how many other cyclists that driver gave such lousy information to?
I seriously doubt many cyclists in the road are unware of the path.
It may not be sugar coating it... there are some paths are are better than the street... and I know in this area there are some paths that are not even on the maps yet, so it is quite easy for a cyclists to not know they exist.
But a frame of mind that just dismisses outright any suggestions such as even checking out a path or John E's suggestion of at least telling us what the actual path conditions might be, just shows the arrogance of some riders to push for "rights" over any and all practicality.
John E simply suggested:
Originally Posted by John E
What we need to establish, for the current discussion, are the convenience, safety, and other aspects of the Colorado trail in question.
Even John Forester admits that some paths may offer a convenience to cyclists that might not otherwise exist. And yes, we all know of bad path examples... is this in fact one of these?