>>>>> "dewatf" == dewatf <
[email protected]> writes:
dewatf> Duffy arguments are: 1) That cyclists slow down traffic on
dewatf> busy arterial roads annoying drivers
Cyclists do no such thing. How else do you explain cars not able to
leave the lights on green because there's no room for them on the other
side of the junction? There is a perception that cyclists slow traffic,
in peak hour replacing a bike with a car would increase congestion and
slow traffic down even more.
dewatf> 2) That the purported fuel savings from cycling do not count
dewatf> on the increased fuel consumption of slowed down and
dewatf> stop-starting vehicles caused by cyclists. It is true that
dewatf> slowed down and stop-starting vehicles do burn more fuel,
dewatf> whether the fuel consumption is actually increased is a
dewatf> question for empirical experimentation (and would depend on
dewatf> whether the cyclists would otherwise drive, use PT or walk).
See response to one. It's congestion that causes start stop traffic,
not cyclists.
dewatf> 3) That the fully lit cycle way on the M7 is likely to be
dewatf> underused and not an efficent use of money.
Can't comment, I'm in Melbourne. I don't want or need special
facilities to ride on the road, I'm quite happy as part of normal
traffic.
dewatf> 4) That cyclists are 1% of the traffic on Sydney's road,
dewatf> (less on arterial roads) and inconviencing everybody for
dewatf> them is not a good idea.
As cyclists don't inconvenience everybody as demonstrated in response to
first point, this is nonsense.
dewatf> All perfectly rational and researched arguments from a
dewatf> noncyclist's point of view.
Rational perhaps, certainly not researched.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)