Nemo said:I can't see the point of that (unless it's a troll).
To return to the original thread, I for one am quite happy to accept the
occasional/regularly-spaced gate-type thingie on cycle-paths. Without these, I believe that
motorcycles would very soon make their appearance. The intention of cycle-paths is surely to
provide leisure routes and safe routes for those (parents, tourists, etc) who prefer to avoid the
risk inherent in riding on today's highways. The cost of a few moments every half-mile or so is
surely not excessive.
As has been said on this thread, how about people on recumbent bicycles or heavily laden tourers?
Also, these barriers prevent wheelchair disabled people using the routes, and so when the
Disability Discrimination Act comes fully into force next year or the year after, they will all be
removed anyway.
You make a point about the risk of todays highways. I won't try and pooh-pooh you, as these are very
real, and are genuine concerns for many people - myself included.
I'm not going to express myself very well, but having owned a car in the past, there is a place for
fast roads, which will be unsafe for bibycles and mopeds under 50cc, horses and carts etc.
But for the vast majority of our roads, why do we have to accept that bicycles, and other slower
forms of transport e.g. horses are somehow 'second class citizens'?
And thinking of dedicated bike paths - great. I use them and enjoy them all the time. But think - if
you are (say) commuting to work, or going somewhere in a hurry you will take the most direct route -
a road. And you have every right to do so.
In another thread on this group, someone pointed out the stupidity of a Scottish local authority
lauding a cross-country Sustrans route as a convenient commuter facility.