Old 06-22-14, 11:17 AM
  #49  
jyl
Senior Member
 
jyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 7,639

Bikes: 61 Bianchi Specialissima 71 Peugeot G50 7? P'geot PX10 74 Raleigh GranSport 75 P'geot UO8 78? Raleigh Team Pro 82 P'geot PSV 86 P'geot PX 91 Bridgestone MB0 92 B'stone XO1 97 Rans VRex 92 Cannondale R1000 94 B'stone MB5 97 Vitus 997

Mentioned: 146 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 49 Times in 31 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
This design and many others "assume" that you can bike responsibly and sanely... at speeds appropriate for the conditions... the very same demands many cyclists put upon motorists. If you can't bike in a responsible and safe manner for the conditions, why do you expect motorists to drive in a responsible and safe manner?

ALL SHARED TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRES SAFE AND RESPONSIBLE USE BY ALL USERS.

It really IS that simple.
Your reply reinforces my suspicion that this sort of cycletrack is designed to SLOW cyclists to someone else's idea of "sane" speeds appropriate for riding in a narrow space between, and always at risk of being encroached by, pedestrians, children, dogs, and people loading/unloading from cars.

No thanks! I ride to get where I'm going and I enjoy the freedom and joy of riding at whatever speed I can and want to, in whatever lane for which my speed is appropriate. Where I have the legs, lungs and sometimes gravity assist, I'll ride 20-25-30 with the cars; other places I'm comfortable riding on the shoulder or in a conventional bike lane.

I'm not going to be forced to ride like an "interested but concerned" 8-to-80'er on a sensible city bike. If that is the implication of this sort of bike infrastructure, then I'll become an active opponent.

Last edited by jyl; 06-22-14 at 01:34 PM.
jyl is offline