First, my idea. It's a safety device. Bike trails cross roads. Cyclists have to stop to see if cars are coming. Why not put up some sort of split screen display which shows traffic in each direction so that cyclists don't have to stop if it's not necessary. Better yet, just put in stop signs and train crossing equipment to stop cars every time somebody on the bike trail wants to cross the road.
Who should pay for this? Motorists. They're the ones that made cycling, walking and pushing baby carriages so dangerous in the first place. Why shouldn't they pay?
First, my idea. It's a safety device. Bike trails cross roads. Cyclists have to stop to see if cars are coming. Why not put up some sort of split screen display which shows traffic in each direction so that cyclists don't have to stop if it's not necessary. Better yet, just put in stop signs and train crossing equipment to stop cars every time somebody on the bike trail wants to cross the road.
Who should pay for this? Motorists. They're the ones that made cycling, walking and pushing baby carriages so dangerous in the first place. Why shouldn't they pay?
Spilling more pavement for bike trails is already enough ecologically destructive [censored] in the name of bikes, and in some cases too much.. don't electronicize them, please.
First, my idea. It's a safety device. Bike trails cross roads. Cyclists have to stop to see if cars are coming. Why not put up some sort of split screen display which shows traffic in each direction so that cyclists don't have to stop if it's not necessary. Better yet, just put in stop signs and train crossing equipment to stop cars every time somebody on the bike trail wants to cross the road.
Why not just use the road, professor? It's a safety device.
Who should pay for this? Motorists. They're the ones that made cycling, walking and pushing baby carriages so dangerous in the first place. Why shouldn't they pay?
Agreed, *WE* shouldn't have to pay... the *government* should pay for that!
