F
On Jul 13, 2:20 am, Bob McFakename <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> From looking at that picuture, it looks like you hsd a perfectly good bike
> path close by to the west, but for whatever eason, you deliberately went
> out of your way to ride into a construction zone to give some homebuilders
> some ****. I wouldn't be quick to whine about the resulting mayhem in a
> usenet post, but hey, maybe it's a slow day in Batvia.
This post is the internet version of the "Get on the bike path!!!"
idiocy that we hear yelled from car windows every once in a while.
And how appropriate that those cowards use their car-protected
anonymity to yell abuse, while this coward uses a fake internet name!
Bikes are legally vehicles. Cyclists are entitled to use the roads.
Except in a couple backward jurisdictions, they are NOT required to
use adjoining bike paths, any more than motorists are required to use
adjoining freeways.
But thanks, "McFakename," for illustrating a downside to bike ghettos.
- Frank Krygowski
>
>
> From looking at that picuture, it looks like you hsd a perfectly good bike
> path close by to the west, but for whatever eason, you deliberately went
> out of your way to ride into a construction zone to give some homebuilders
> some ****. I wouldn't be quick to whine about the resulting mayhem in a
> usenet post, but hey, maybe it's a slow day in Batvia.
This post is the internet version of the "Get on the bike path!!!"
idiocy that we hear yelled from car windows every once in a while.
And how appropriate that those cowards use their car-protected
anonymity to yell abuse, while this coward uses a fake internet name!
Bikes are legally vehicles. Cyclists are entitled to use the roads.
Except in a couple backward jurisdictions, they are NOT required to
use adjoining bike paths, any more than motorists are required to use
adjoining freeways.
But thanks, "McFakename," for illustrating a downside to bike ghettos.
- Frank Krygowski
