Originally Posted by
kickstart
The only thing I'm ridiculing is the nonsense of fabricated "history" as a justification to "take back the roads" that some simple minded enthusiasts who proclaim to be advocates spew.
When the user split in most areas is 98% Vs. 2% its also ridicules to suggest that anything anything less than equal access is "tyranny", or "might over right". Real advocacy is about making roads safe, accessible, and efficient for all users, not some sort of pointless feel good parity that serves no purpose other than feed the vanity of enthusiast advocates.
"Primary" and "secondary" are simply an honest observation of statistical usage, not a description of the user. Its pretty sad that some quantify their character by their vehicle choice, and consider facts as a personal attack. If we don't want to be treated as needy children, we shouldn't act like one.
User split doesn't matter. Even if only 2% of the users of the roads are not motor vehicles, those users should not be treated as if they are "in the way" of the 98%. If that were the case, we wouldn't need civil rights, ADA, etc. Our legal system recognizes that minorities have the same rights as the majority.
You can call primary and secondary as just an "observation", but I don't buy it one bit. Based on your posts, it appears you (like many people who don't know better) think of roads as "for" motor vehicles, with everyone else as an afterthought that can squeeze in wherever cars graciously leave them space to exist. Words like primary and secondary contribute to the mindset. Language is often the tip of the spear when it comes to cultural or political change, for good or bad.