Petitions and psychle farcilities

[Nick Maclaren]

There are a gradation of semi-reasonable positions on cycle facilities,
such as:

a) They are intrinsically undesirable, as even the best are less safe
than the roads, they are unsuitable for travelling more than very
short (walking) distances, they cause motorists to think of cyclists
as wheeled pedestrians, and they cause cyclists who continue to use
the road to be at increased risk of assault, but they may be needed
to avoid particularly dangerous roads.

b) Good cycle facilities are desirable, but seriously substandard
psychle farcilities are harmful. [ The reasons are intermediate
between those in (a) and (c). ]

c) Unless they are lethal or unusable, even the most extreme psychle
farcilities are better than nothing, as many less confident people
prefer them and they encourage people to "think bike". Cyclists
who continue to use the road just have to look out for themselves,
and victims of repeated assault must have been riding in a way as
to provoke such assault. [ I said "semi-reasonable", not "rational"
or "correct". ]

Given the success of the petition in getting an alleviation of the
anti-cycling wording in the Highway Code, would we get any support
for one against psychle farcilities?

I don't think that there is a hope in hell of getting support for
position (a), but there would once have been for position (b), and it
could be done by petitioning for mandatory minimum standards. Let's
ignore the details for now.

Personally, I don't think that would fly, as my impression is that
the majority of cycling pressure groups and the majority of cyclists
in places like Cambridge now favour position (c). Is it too late
to preserve cycling as a form of road transport?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Chris]

Nick Maclaren wrote:
> There are a gradation of semi-reasonable positions on cycle facilities,
> such as:
>
> a) They are intrinsically undesirable, as even the best are less safe
> than the roads, they are unsuitable for travelling more than very
> short (walking) distances, they cause motorists to think of cyclists
> as wheeled pedestrians, and they cause cyclists who continue to use
> the road to be at increased risk of assault, but they may be needed
> to avoid particularly dangerous roads.

I don't think it's only cyclists who are at increased risk of an accident
because of this, either.

I have noticed a disturbing trend when driving around Cambridge recently:
if I am travelling very slowly, because of a cyclist ahead of me that I
can't pass for one reason or another, it seems more and more drivers behind
me will do stupid things because they no longer have any patience. I've
seen silly overtakes, had cars accelerate up so close to hitting me that I
was bracing for the impact, plus the traditional blasting of horns,
flashing of headlights, and the odd creative hand gesture.

Now, while I am unlikely to be seriously hurt as the driver of the car in
front, some of these things are very dangerous to the cyclist in front of
me, particularly the bizarre "overtaking me then pulling in right on top of
the cyclist" manoeuvre. Of course, if an collision does result, that is
also likely to cause a lot of wasted time and insurance hassles for me, too.

It has actually reached the stage where I will sometimes choose to pass a
cyclist I trust at closer than what I would call a comfortable distance,
rather than continue to antagonise an obviously aggressive driver behind me
that I think may do something stupid. I really don't like it, but I suspect
it is safer both for me and for the cyclist I was following.

After many years living here, during which I have been a motorist, cyclist
and pedestrian in roughly equal measures, I have come to the conclusion
that there are only two good places to be cycling: on the road like any
other vehicle, or on a good quality, dedicated path that runs on a
different route to the road network. On-road cycle lanes, and worse,
shared-use pavements along the edge of a road, just create artificial
opportunities for accidents, and promote a culture of competition among
road users that serves no-one.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[Martin Dann]

Nick Maclaren wrote:
> There are a gradation of semi-reasonable positions on cycle facilities,
> such as:

IMHO I am for position b.
Off road facilities (e.g. Bristol to Bath cycle path) are
usually very good. They are excellent for leisure.

Shared use footpaths beside roads are blatantly evil, the
only people who really benefit are motorists.

The vast majority of on road facilities are bad, the only
real use is for passing traffic jams, and then unsafely.

I notice that more and more motorists are ignoring ASLs,
mandatory cycle lanes and the like.


> a) They are intrinsically undesirable,

> Given the success of the petition in getting an alleviation of the
> anti-cycling wording in the Highway Code, would we get any support
> for one against psychle farcilities?

The success of the HWC petition was because the government
were trying to change an intrinsic right.
I don't think a petition like this will get very much
support, a few hundred sigs at most.

 

[Mark Goodge]

On 9 Jul 2007 17:53:46 GMT, Nick Maclaren put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>
>There are a gradation of semi-reasonable positions on cycle facilities,
>such as:
>
>a) They are intrinsically undesirable, as even the best are less safe
> than the roads, they are unsuitable for travelling more than very
> short (walking) distances, they cause motorists to think of cyclists
> as wheeled pedestrians, and they cause cyclists who continue to use
> the road to be at increased risk of assault, but they may be needed
> to avoid particularly dangerous roads.
>
>b) Good cycle facilities are desirable, but seriously substandard
> psychle farcilities are harmful. [ The reasons are intermediate
> between those in (a) and (c). ]
>
>c) Unless they are lethal or unusable, even the most extreme psychle
> farcilities are better than nothing, as many less confident people
> prefer them and they encourage people to "think bike". Cyclists
> who continue to use the road just have to look out for themselves,
> and victims of repeated assault must have been riding in a way as
> to provoke such assault. [ I said "semi-reasonable", not "rational"
> or "correct". ]
>
>Given the success of the petition in getting an alleviation of the
>anti-cycling wording in the Highway Code, would we get any support
>for one against psychle farcilities?
>
>I don't think that there is a hope in hell of getting support for
>position (a), but there would once have been for position (b), and it
>could be done by petitioning for mandatory minimum standards. Let's
>ignore the details for now.

The problem with this is that any rational person will choose position
(b), as you've described them - your wording makes both (a) and (c)
simply absurd. But the real issue is that what other people may think
of as reasonable may not be what you think of as reasonable. It may
appear to you that you are advocating (b) and others prefer (c), while
they in turn think that their position is (b) and you are advocating
(a). The disagreement is on the definition of (b), not its
desirability.

Mark
--
Blog: http://Mark.Goodge.co.uk Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
"Come on you target for faraway laughter, come on you stranger, you legend, you martyr, and shine!"

 

[Eleanor Blair]

Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
>
>Given the success of the petition in getting an alleviation of the
>anti-cycling wording in the Highway Code, would we get any support
>for one against psychle farcilities?

The closest I've seen is this one:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Cycle-lanes/

Although there are vast numbers of cycling related petitions: some in
favour of cyclists continuing on the road, some asking for no footpath
cycle ways, some asking for cycling the pavement to be legalised, some
asking for cyclists to be fined for not using cycle lanes and so on and
so forth.

--
[email protected] http://lnr.livejournal.com/

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Goodge <[email protected]> writes:
|>
|> The problem with this is that any rational person will choose position
|> (b), as you've described them - your wording makes both (a) and (c)
|> simply absurd. But the real issue is that what other people may think
|> of as reasonable may not be what you think of as reasonable. It may
|> appear to you that you are advocating (b) and others prefer (c), while
|> they in turn think that their position is (b) and you are advocating
|> (a). The disagreement is on the definition of (b), not its
|> desirability.

I regret not. Starting over a decade ago, I had repeated arguments
with many of the supporters of psychle farcilities, including members
and committee members of the Cambridge Cycling Campaign, the cycling
officials of Cambridgeshire County Council and others; almost all
of them ended up like the following:

Me: So what you do regard as the absolute minimum standards below
which no cycle facility is better than an attempt. Would it be
if they are physically unusable or significantly more dangerous
than no facility?

Them: None. All cycle facilities are better than nothing. If we
accepted any minimum standards, it would reduce the number of
cycle facilities.

or

Me: Look, this facility is physically unusable, the majority of
cyclists I have seen trying to use it have failed, and some had
potentially serious accidents doing so. It is merely a trap for
cyclists unfamiliar with the route.

Them: Then they shouldn't use it. It still shouldn't be removed,
because it is a cycle facility and increases the number of them
on the maps. When resources permit, it should be improved, but
it is much more important to add new facilities than fix old ones.

Sorry, but you are in denial. This is a real problem, and I am
going though my usual cycle :-( After a decade, I am no longer being
told by everyone that I am imagining things, but it still hasn't
reached the stage of the previous deniers saying "but we said that
at the time". By which time it will be too late - and it may already
BE too late.

Have you looked at the statistics of cyclists entering the London
congestion zone? They make depressing reading. There was a useful
increase in the first year or so, though not enough to make cycling
a significant factor, and that has levelled off. Cycling as a form
of medium distance transport is not expanding even there.

That has nothing to do with psychle farcilities as such, but is
another symptom of the same malaise.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>, Chris <none@all> writes:
|>
|> After many years living here, during which I have been a motorist, cyclist
|> and pedestrian in roughly equal measures, I have come to the conclusion
|> that there are only two good places to be cycling: on the road like any
|> other vehicle, or on a good quality, dedicated path that runs on a
|> different route to the road network. On-road cycle lanes, and worse,
|> shared-use pavements along the edge of a road, just create artificial
|> opportunities for accidents, and promote a culture of competition among
|> road users that serves no-one.

Yes. I started banging on that drum a decade back, and have seen
a gradual increase it is support among medium-distance cyclists over
the years, but I now think that the cause is lost. As so often, I
should love to be proved wrong - but, in cases where I want to be,
I rarely am :-(

However, there ARE cases where I have been!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Martin Dann <[email protected]> writes:
|>
|> Off road facilities (e.g. Bristol to Bath cycle path) are
|> usually very good. They are excellent for leisure.

Well, given the number of quiet rural roads, green roads and bridle
in most areas that have them, I can't see that they are needed except
by people who like to be shepherded! I think that one is an exception.

|> Shared use footpaths beside roads are blatantly evil, the
|> only people who really benefit are motorists.
|>
|> The vast majority of on road facilities are bad, the only
|> real use is for passing traffic jams, and then unsafely.
|>
|> I notice that more and more motorists are ignoring ASLs,
|> mandatory cycle lanes and the like.

Agreed in all cases. There is a reason for the last, in that such
things are increasingly being painted on the road specifically to
obstruct motorists. In a few cases, it is impossible to use the
road without ignoring them.

|> The success of the HWC petition was because the government
|> were trying to change an intrinsic right.
|> I don't think a petition like this will get very much
|> support, a few hundred sigs at most.

That is what I thought :-( No point then.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Diana Galletly]

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Goodge <[email protected]> wrote:
>The problem with this is that any rational person will choose position
>(b), as you've described them - your wording makes both (a) and (c)
>simply absurd.

Thanks for caricaturing me as irrational, as I find (a) a perfectly
reasonable position for any halfway competent cyclist to hold. I only
give credence to (b) because there are a lot of people who don't have
the confidence to support (a). I still think it's a half-hearted
wishy-washy cop-out, though.

On the other hand, we already established else-net that I'm a mystic
rather than a rationalist (and this distinction is something that I think
has far wider validity and context than that in which you originally
expounded it -- thanks again for that!)
--
+ Diana Galletly <[email protected]> +
+ http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~galletly +
+ http://diana-galletly.fotopic.net +

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <vdt*[email protected]>, Diana Galletly <[email protected]> writes:
|> In article <[email protected]>,
|> Mark Goodge <[email protected]> wrote:
|> >The problem with this is that any rational person will choose position
|> >(b), as you've described them - your wording makes both (a) and (c)
|> >simply absurd.
|>
|> Thanks for caricaturing me as irrational, as I find (a) a perfectly
|> reasonable position for any halfway competent cyclist to hold. I only
|> give credence to (b) because there are a lot of people who don't have
|> the confidence to support (a). I still think it's a half-hearted
|> wishy-washy cop-out, though.

Frankly, I agree. I suspect that Franklin does, too.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Mark
Goodge ('[email protected]') wrote:

> On 9 Jul 2007 17:53:46 GMT, Nick Maclaren put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>>
>>There are a gradation of semi-reasonable positions on cycle facilities,
>>such as:
>>
>>a) They are intrinsically undesirable, as even the best are less safe
>> than the roads, they are unsuitable for travelling more than very
>> short (walking) distances, they cause motorists to think of cyclists
>> as wheeled pedestrians, and they cause cyclists who continue to use
>> the road to be at increased risk of assault, but they may be needed
>> to avoid particularly dangerous roads.
>>
>>b) Good cycle facilities are desirable, but seriously substandard
>> psychle farcilities are harmful. [ The reasons are intermediate
>> between those in (a) and (c). ]
>>
>>c) Unless they are lethal or unusable, even the most extreme psychle
>> farcilities are better than nothing, as many less confident people
>> prefer them and they encourage people to "think bike". Cyclists
>> who continue to use the road just have to look out for themselves,
>> and victims of repeated assault must have been riding in a way as
>> to provoke such assault. [ I said "semi-reasonable", not "rational"
>> or "correct". ]
>>
>>Given the success of the petition in getting an alleviation of the
>>anti-cycling wording in the Highway Code, would we get any support
>>for one against psychle farcilities?
>>
>>I don't think that there is a hope in hell of getting support for
>>position (a), but there would once have been for position (b), and it
>>could be done by petitioning for mandatory minimum standards. Let's
>>ignore the details for now.
>
> The problem with this is that any rational person will choose position
> (b), as you've described them - your wording makes both (a) and (c)
> simply absurd. But the real issue is that what other people may think
> of as reasonable may not be what you think of as reasonable. It may
> appear to you that you are advocating (b) and others prefer (c), while
> they in turn think that their position is (b) and you are advocating
> (a). The disagreement is on the definition of (b), not its
> desirability.

H'mmm. I /think/ I'm a rational person...

However, (a) looks like the only remotely sensible position to me. Any
solution which gets cyclists off the road reduces the critical mass of
cyclists on the road, and it is precisely that critical mass that makes
cycling safer. Facilities also give credence to the motorists belief that
cyclists somehow shouldn't be on the road.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

For office use only. Please do not write or type below this line.

 

[Mark]

> Thanks for caricaturing me as irrational, as I find (a) a perfectly
> reasonable position for any halfway competent cyclist to hold.

The (snipped) quote below does kinda show that it's irrational, tho a bit
of clarification would justify it.

> "even the best are less safe than the roads [...] but they may be
> needed to avoid particularly dangerous roads."

Personally I quite like things like lanes that let me go the 'wrong' way
down one way streets, those ickle gaps that take me past pinch points
without getting pinched, cycles paths that give me a short cut etc.

What we need with facilities are good, sensible standards that are adheared
to particularly with regards to lane width, distance from the doorzone and
substandard ones removed.

The other thing we need is the focus changed to safer roads for all in
preference to papering over the dangers with so-called facilities.

I go for B, but the standards out there are so dire that A is pretty much a
useful 'short version' of what I think.

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark <pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid> writes:
|>
|> > Thanks for caricaturing me as irrational, as I find (a) a perfectly
|> > reasonable position for any halfway competent cyclist to hold.
|>
|> The (snipped) quote below does kinda show that it's irrational, tho a bit
|> of clarification would justify it.
|>
|> > "even the best are less safe than the roads [...] but they may be
|> > needed to avoid particularly dangerous roads."
|>
|> Personally I quite like things like lanes that let me go the 'wrong' way
|> down one way streets, those ickle gaps that take me past pinch points
|> without getting pinched, cycles paths that give me a short cut etc.

No, it's not irrational to object to those. They encourage cyclists
to think that the road laws don't apply to them, and motorists to think
that cyclists are allowed to get away with anything. Objecting to them
on those grounds is rational, even if you disagree.

However, I agree with you that they are useful, when done carefully.
But they often aren't :-(

Contra-flow lanes, for example, often introduce unnecessary danger
when the road isn't wide enough and there is a fair amount of oncoming
traffic (remember, buses need more width than cars), especially at any
speed above 20 MPH. Ickle gaps that force a cyclist to come to a dead
stop on a busy road at a point that there is no apparent junction are
likely to get the cyclist run into from behind. And so on.

|> I go for B, but the standards out there are so dire that A is pretty much a
|> useful 'short version' of what I think.

Reasonable. I said that it was a gradation.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Ian Smith]

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On 10 Jul 2007, Diana Galletly <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Mark Goodge <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >The problem with this is that any rational person will choose position
> >(b), as you've described them - your wording makes both (a) and (c)
> >simply absurd.
>
> Thanks for caricaturing me as irrational, as I find (a) a perfectly
> reasonable position for any halfway competent cyclist to hold.

Then, in my opinion, you clearly are irrational. I consider that it
would be physically possible to build a useful cycle facility, and
that a useful cycle facility may exist already. Position a claims
this is impossible. Hence, I consider you irrational, and cannot
conclude anything else from the evidence presented.

Do you really consider it completely physically impossible to build a
useful cycle facility?

It is clearly (in my opinion) irrational to say that every cycle
facility ever built must be bad.

regards, Ian Smith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ian Smith]

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> However, (a) looks like the only remotely sensible position to me. Any
> solution which gets cyclists off the road reduces the critical mass of
> cyclists on the road, and it is precisely that critical mass that makes
> cycling safer. Facilities also give credence to the motorists belief that
> cyclists somehow shouldn't be on the road.


So, given a choice between a wide, safe, short route and a long detour
with a number of specific hazards, if cars are obliged to go the long
way round, you consider it irrational to use a shorter, safer route?
But if cars could use the short route, then it might become good?

I think I'm glad my rationality isn't calibrated the same as yours.

It cannot be rational to claim that every cycle facility must by
definition be bad. You're claiming that it is inherent to cycle
facilities that they must by definition be bad. It seems odd to me to
claim that this is rational.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[David Hansen]

On 10 Jul 2007 12:32:52 GMT someone who may be [email protected]
(Nick Maclaren) wrote this:-

>|> Personally I quite like things like lanes that let me go the 'wrong' way
>|> down one way streets, those ickle gaps that take me past pinch points
>|> without getting pinched, cycles paths that give me a short cut etc.
>
>No, it's not irrational to object to those. They encourage cyclists
>to think that the road laws don't apply to them, and motorists to think
>that cyclists are allowed to get away with anything.

How?

A "one-way street" is not one-way if there is a lane for vehicle
operators in the other direction. It is simply one-way for the
operators of some vehicles and two-way for the operators of other
vehicles. It may be that some people are not able to grasp this, but
that is not a reason to do things differently.

I also fail to see how gaps and short-cuts encourage the thinking by
motorists and cyclists that you assert they do.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Martin Dann]

Mark wrote:
>> Thanks for caricaturing me as irrational, as I find (a) a perfectly
>> reasonable position for any halfway competent cyclist to hold.
>
> The (snipped) quote below does kinda show that it's irrational, tho a bit
> of clarification would justify it.
>
>> "even the best are less safe than the roads [...] but they may be
>> needed to avoid particularly dangerous roads."
>
> Personally I quite like things like lanes that let me go the 'wrong' way
> down one way streets, those ickle gaps that take me past pinch points
> without getting pinched, cycles paths that give me a short cut etc.

I agree with one way street and short cut lanes, as long
as you treat them with extreme caution and slow down.

The ones that take me past pinch points are a different
issue. The pinch points should not be there in the first
place. Pinch points increase the danger on the road.
These ickle gaps are often filled with debris, painted
with slippery paint, and block by cars parked at one end.
They also encourage you to take an unexpected route, as
far as cagers are concerned, when you should adopt the
primary position.


> What we need with facilities are good, sensible standards that are adheared
> to particularly with regards to lane width, distance from the doorzone and
> substandard ones removed.

I agree with the removal of substandard ones, that means
removal well over 90% of on road farcilities in my area.

Martin.

 

[Matt B]

Ian Smith wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
> On 10 Jul 2007, Diana Galletly <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Mark Goodge <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> The problem with this is that any rational person will choose position
>>> (b), as you've described them - your wording makes both (a) and (c)
>>> simply absurd.
>> Thanks for caricaturing me as irrational, as I find (a) a perfectly
>> reasonable position for any halfway competent cyclist to hold.
>
> Then, in my opinion, you clearly are irrational.

Ian, there you go again. Attacking the integrity of someone whose
opinion you misunderstand.

> I consider that it
> would be physically possible to build a useful cycle facility, and
> that a useful cycle facility may exist already. Position a claims
> this is impossible.

Read it again. It does /not/ claim that cycle facilities cannot be
"useful". It asserts that they are less safe than roads, unsuitable for
other than short distances, give motorists an adverse impression of
cyclists, and increase the risk of assault for cyclists ignoring them,
and are thus "intrinsically undesirable".

> Hence, I consider you irrational, and cannot
> conclude anything else from the evidence presented.

At least two of those problems cannot be designed-out or built-out of a
cycling facility, so the conclusion "intrinsically undesirable" is
incontrovertible. A facility which can only ever have faults cannot
/ever/ be desirable.

> Do you really consider it completely physically impossible to build a
> useful cycle facility?

They can be useful, yet dangerous, but cannot be useful and safe, so are
"intrinsically undesirable".

> It is clearly (in my opinion) irrational to say that every cycle
> facility ever built must be bad.

It is you who are employing faulty logic then. Can you describe a
cycling facility which will _not_ cause resentment in, at least, /some/
motorists, and which will _not_ increase the risk of assault for those
who choose to boycott it???

--
Matt B

"Flattery makes friends and truth makes enemies."

 

[Martin Dann]

Nick Maclaren wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Martin Dann <[email protected]> writes:
> |>
> |> Off road facilities (e.g. Bristol to Bath cycle path) are
> |> usually very good. They are excellent for leisure.
>
> Well, given the number of quiet rural roads, green roads and bridle
> in most areas that have them, I can't see that they are needed except
> by people who like to be shepherded! I think that one is an exception.

I would like to see more off road facilities. If I am out
for a ride then sometimes it is nice to get away from
motorised traffic, and that is very difficult where I live.

If for example I ride along the pill[1] path, I only ever
go one way, I make to or from the other end on road.


Other useful facilities include paths on motorway bridges,
e.g. the M5 over the Avon, the old Severn crossing, The M2
over the Medway etc.


[1] Bristol city centre to Pill, going along beside the
river Avon. Pill is close to where the Avon enters the Severn.

 

[Matt B]

Ian Smith wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> However, (a) looks like the only remotely sensible position to me. Any
>> solution which gets cyclists off the road reduces the critical mass of
>> cyclists on the road, and it is precisely that critical mass that makes
>> cycling safer. Facilities also give credence to the motorists belief that
>> cyclists somehow shouldn't be on the road.
>
>
> So, given a choice between a wide, safe, short route and a long detour
> with a number of specific hazards, if cars are obliged to go the long
> way round, you consider it irrational to use a shorter, safer route?

In a word - yes. Sustainable road safety requires a holistic approach.

> But if cars could use the short route, then it might become good?

Yes. With all roads open to all user types harmony is more likely.

> I think I'm glad my rationality isn't calibrated the same as yours.

Think it through again.

> It cannot be rational to claim that every cycle facility must by
> definition be bad.

But they are - they cause division and resentment amongst different user
types.

> You're claiming that it is inherent to cycle
> facilities that they must by definition be bad.

They must - they discriminate.

> It seems odd to me to
> claim that this is rational.

That doesn't surprise me. You /also/ seem to think the same about
segregated pedestrian facilities.

--
Matt B

"Flattery makes friends and truth makes enemies."