Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P.
There chances of that are a number approaching zero given the tiny number of actual cyclists. What I suggested is actually done in many places and has always seemed to work quite well and at far less public expense. Things driven by a philosophical agenda instead of demonstrable need are always going to be unnecessarily expensive.
|
Philosophically or not, I don’t think it’s a great idea to mix pedestrian and cycling traffic on sidewalks, which are not overly wide as it is, and were designed for walking, not vehicles moving at speed. I am imagining that you haven’t had a close call of a cyclist passing you from behind while you are walking, but it’s unpleasant at best and objectively dangerous in the worst case. Cyclists need to have their own lanes, and there are many places that don’t have sidewalks that really need them. If the city hadn’t cheaped out on all this stuff years ago, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation, because it would have been done right and getting around would be much safer for everyone.
It’s surprising to me each time this has to be explained, as it seems so obvious.
Threaded Mode