> They are not pro-cycling. They are get out of the cars way > measures and why do we need any steenking facilities when we have > rights?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Because sometimes it is enjoyable to ride without dualing with cars.
Quoted message said:
So why not remove the problem (cars) instead of spending lots of money on a solution which a) increases the risk of injury to cyclists using it, b) encourages the mindset (amongst car drivers and others) that cyclists shouldn't be on the road, c) encourages the mindset (amongst less confident/less informed cyclists) that cyclists shouldn't be on the road), d) is generally slower and less convenient than being on the road.
Established models in other countries prove your arguments to be unfounded.
Please cite any study from any country anywhere in the world where the introduction of cycle lanes /or/ cycle paths has led to a /decrease/ in injuries per kilometre cycled. I don't believe you can. I do know, however, of studies from the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada all of which show a significant /increase/ in injuries per km cycled consequent on the introduction of cycle lanes and/or paths.
;; MS Windows: A thirty-two bit extension ... to a sixteen bit ;; patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a ;; four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that ;; can't stand one bit of competition -- anonymous
| "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote: | | At Tue, 07 Jun 2005 16:55:53 GMT, message | <[email hidden]> was posted by Buck | <[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the following: | | >And so it starts again. | | Clueless newbie[1] starts helmet war: pictures at eleven. | | [1] with apologies to whoever it was created the Zen levels of helmets | categories.
Didn't know there were Zen levels of helmets categories. Looks to me like a post-pub item...
Not intentionally. I'm sure the largely clue-free types responsible for them mean well, but then again, so did [censored][1].
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
1 - irony
Quoted message said:
At least [censored] was honest about his intentions, when he introduced compulsory cycle lanes in the 30's he said he was doing it to make more room for cars on the road.
Britain did the same thing in the 30's for the same stated reason, I think this was the rise of the CTC as the lobbying group for cyclists that got the debacle stopped.
Britain did the same thing in the 30's for the same stated reason, I think this was the rise of the CTC as the lobbying group for cyclists that got the debacle stopped.
The CTC way predates that and even the motor car. It was lobbying by the CTC in the 1860's (?) along with the League of American Wheelmen in the US that led to metalled roads for riding on. It was these metalled roads that made the motor car practical when it came along. So in a way the motor car is all the fault of the CTC ;-^)
-- Tony
"Don't argue the matter, the difficulties will argue for themselves" -W.S. Churchill
