Originally Posted by
Bekologist
jhon, sorry to have confused your anti-infrastructure diatribe in the Copenhagen thread. You lumped Moritz' studies into your smear of Portland. My apologies.
Your assertions that YES, some streets are safer than others is what this thread was meant to draw out. Illuminate us, john, what makes some streets safer for bicycling than others? Low speeds, low traffic, wide lanes? what makes streets less safe for bicyclists? high speeds, heavy traffic, limited sightlines, agressive motor traffic? around bars at closing time?
what do you mean when you describe 'safer' streets?
And hey, banning bikes from certain high speed cooridors if a slow speed alternative exists IS your point of view, jhon.
I simply speculate about where the slippery slope stops if you're already lobbying to ban bikes from some transportation cooridors for the benefit of motorists. just freeways? what about limited access highways? and then it will be 50MPH roads.....
Regardless of your apology, the rest of your posting is more of your typical work. Again, you are either ignorant of what you write so nastily, or you know the facts and are deliberately lying. I don't know which it is, but either set of acts is despicable. I have never lobbied to have any road closed to cyclists; rather, I have done the reverse, worked to prevent roads being closed to cyclists, or to open roads that have been closed.
As for what you consider to be the features that make one street more dangerous than another, they are mostly of little significance. The fact that you choose to offer these examples is another demonstration of how ignorant you are about traffic operation.