"EuanB" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> On Apr 26, 4:36 pm, Shane Stanley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>
>> EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > IMO the only path that can be considered safe is cyclist only, one way
>> > and with priority at junctions.
>>
>> Given that the accident didn't happen at a junction and by Rooman's
>> account no-one else was involved, it sounds highly unlikely those
>> conditions would have made any difference in this case, though. A
>> one-way track might well have been narrower, making things worse.
>
>
> OK, I'll spell out once more my idea of a safe bike path.
>
> Exclusive to cyclists.
>
> One way.
>
> Priority over all other traffic at intersctions, including
> pedestrians.
>
> Well surfaced, surface to be at least 3 meters wide.
>
> Width of path to be at least five meters to allow good sight lines.
> --
> Cheers,
> Euan
My idea of a safe bike path:
Not exclusive to cyclists - why create separation and the impression we're
somehow special?
Two ways - dumbing down facilities contributes nothing to evolving skills
and normalising bicycle use.
No special priority. Subject to normal vehicle rules - again, we're not
special.
I'll agree to the well surfaced part, but three to five meters? Isn't it
true that we expect people to drive to the conditions? Shouldn't it also be
true that cyclists should ride to the conditions? If the path or street is
narrow and/or has poor sight lines, slow down to a safe speed. We have
enough tarmac strips stuffing up the landscape.
The first three of your ideas seem to me to be creating the same sort of
bubble that motorists are accused of living in and removing the need for
working skills and human interaction. Personally, I don't accept that
cyclists should be separated from other people - commuters, walkers,
families out for a picnic, etc. The whole kit and caboodle should integrate.
To me, that's the utopian ideal, not segregation based on the convenience
determined by a mode of transport.
Yes, motor vehicles have their freeways and highways; their privileges and
priorities. Tough. I se no reason to replicate that for other ways people
use to move around. Why duplicate what's already seen as a mistake?
I also think that cyclists should have a certificate of competency (or
something like that) issued by schools for kids. Prospective drivers would
need to prove competency on a bicycle before they are permitted to apply for
a driver's license. There would, of course, be exceptions for those who are
unable to ride (disabled, etc) but they would be expected to submit to a
written or oral examination to show good knowledge of cycling.
Overall, I see the problem with the interactions between modes of transport
as being rooted in the idea that a chosen form of transport makes one person
somehow different to others. None of us is special or has some sort of
convenience priority over others; and that's what we're discussing -
convenience. It's more convenient for me to have a faster, uninterrupted
route. It's not a need. I see no need to pander to convenience by
segregating when, for me, the ideal is integration and human interaction
that's not goverened by one's chosen means of movement.
Nuff for now - maybe I'm just sensitive about being yelled at so much for
being on the road when ther's a bike path near by. Bike paths seem to
support the idea that I shouldn't be cycling on the road.
Frank
