Originally Posted by
Helmet Head
I already do both. But that's not going to convert every U.S. city into haveing an Amsterdam like segregated bicycling system, which is what we were talking about.
You're distorting what we're talking about in order to further your own cause - denigrate me.
I think it's futile to convert every U.S. city into an Amsterdam, so I don't waste my time and resources fantasizing about that, or advocating plans and programs that are dependent on ultimately achieving that.
I just did a search of this thread of the word "Amsterdam". Yours is the only post that I can find that refers to
Amsterdam.
Who, other than you, said that turning every US city into having an Amsterdam-like segregated bicycling system was the goal? Even the post by Allister to which you were responding made no reference to Amsterdam. And so far as I can see Allister does not even reside in the US. He seemed to me to be talking about cities
in general and not US cities particularly.
If anyone is distorting what we're talking about to further their own cause I would venture to say it's you. By reframing the argument you've left little room for real discussion.
The article cited by the OP was:
#1 about North America and primarily
Canadian cities (though it did reference the US.)
#2 mentions Europe (Denmark, Netherlands and Germany) but never
Amsterdam specifically nor does it make any direct reference to that city. The bicycle infrastructures I have ridden on in France, Switzerland and the Netherlands were different dependent on city and region. They were not all built on the Amsterdam model, which serves Amsterdam well but not every European city as well. The bike paths and lanes of Rotterdam are quite different from Amsterdam. Rotterdam was rebuilt after the 2nd world war and the city has a very different layout to Amsterdam it's bike paths reflect that.
#3 what exactly has your personal experience been when you've ridden in Amsterdam? Did you find that bike infrastructure insufficient for that city? Why do you take issue with it and what does it have to do with this discussion. Please elaborate.
#4 The OP's article said the following:
Our study will examine the association between bicyclists' injuries and the cycling environment (primarily the types of route, including integration or separation of the cyclist from motorized or pedestrian traffic; types of intersection; and presence of car parking and junctions)...The results of this study will provide sound evidence for transportation planners, allowing them to select cycling infrastructure that will improve the safety of cycling in Canadian cities. This should not only reduce the risk of traumatic injuries to cyclists, but, as a result, promote cycling as an urban transportation option, with attendant personal and public health benefits.
it draws no conclusions nor does it promote any specific solution. Instead it says, "allowing them to select cycling infrastructure..." To
select implies
choices. No where did I get the sense from the article that one particular choice was being promoted. It was a proposal for a
study nothing more nothing less.