On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 18:41:30 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org
rules of the road. Bikes travel a lot faster than pedestrians and
power wheel chairs. Our "sidewalks" tend to be just over a meter wide,
so collisions between bikes and pedestrians are a very real danger
with cyclists on the sidewalk or "pavement" as you Brits call it.
I do better than 90% of my cycling on the roads, with short sections
on the sidewalks and the rest on the trailways. (which are generally 2
meters or more in width, and paved like the roads with asphault)
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 16:37:44 -0400, email@example.com wrote:
But that is the problem, isn't it? Many cyclists think the rules
aren't made for them - they think they are more vulnerable,
discriminated against and shouldn't have to follow the rules. Drivers
of motor vehicles are, to a large extent, obliged to follow the rules
of the road, both legal and informal, and cyclists aren't. That is
what really gets up driver's noses. Motorists hate cyclists because
they think they offend the moral order. A hallmark of humans, is to
get angry at people who break the rules, who take the benefits without
contributing to the cost. And cyclists trigger this anger when they
use the roads but don't follow the same rules as cars.
Yes but bike don't have to travel as fast as they can, just like cars
don't have to.
I think most cyclists are like you, reasonable and responsible (I
don't live in London, mind).
used to live in Austin, which is on the edge of the hill country and the
cyclists liked to speed down the hills, only to find themselves being
fined for speeding.
Another problem I've noticed is that there are those drivers who don't
seem to believe that cyclist, and those riding motorcycles, shouldn't be
on the road so they simply ignore them. That's bad.
I think I'll take a cyclist of similar weight to me colliding with me, over a car with 15 times the weight of me colliding with me. Basic physics says the car is gonna hurt a lot more, even at the same speed.
"Get as far away from the nuclear explosion as possible" - Rodney McKay, Stargate Atlantis.
We have a park along a river near here where the city created separate
paved paths - one is for walking pedestrians, and the other is for
cyclists, skate boarders, and skaters. The cyclists, people on wheels,
got to where they were endangering the walkers because they'd travel too
fast on the same path, so the city revamped all the paths to accommodate
I think your city has been very sensible and forward thinking in going
ahead and revamping. Yet I know some people won't agree. It would
bring criticism and accusations of cheaters and free-riders from those
who tend to see cyclists as, well, spongers on society. It's a hard
life, isn't it? :)
The way we see it here is that cyclists were trying to ride on the 4
lane road that goes parallel to the river trails and some of them were
getting hit by cars. The car drivers weren't always at fault, as were
the cyclists not always being at fault. A few people were killed, even.
The river trails are a main attraction for the city and many people use
it to walk, cycle, jog, roller skate, and skate board on it for
exercise. The plan for a long time was to upgrade the trails to
accommodate separate paved paths to make it safer for everyone. Now,
the cyclists are trying to use the 4 lane busy road, there haven't been
any major accidents between cyclists and motorists, and pedestrians
aren't being hit by cyclists or others on wheels running them down on
the trail paths. Everyone has a marked path to use, now. If you're on
foot, use the foot path. If on wheels use the cycle path.
You must mean that now the cyclists are *not* trying to use the 4 lane
busy road there haven't been any major accidents.
Sounds as if the people who plan the city's infrastructure have
managed to get things sorted out to the benefit of all concerned on
the trail paths as well as the parallel busy road now. It is obviously
a good thing that your river trails can be happily and safely enjoyed
by cyclists and pedestrians alike - and it all makes for pleasant
So far so good, anyway, with the river trails.
The city also came up with plans for flood control systems here after a
major flood hit the city some years ago. They implemented those plans,
too, and all we have these days are nominal street flooding in heavy
rains. Of course, there could always be a major event that caused the
river the flood, but that would really be hard to plan for not every
having a flood event like that. If a dam upstream failed, for example,
all the flood control systems wouldn't be able to help at that point.
Everything seems to come at a price, doesn't it. If you have all the
benefits of a nearby river and live close by, the risk of flooding in
extreme weather may be something of a worry. I live near what used to
be a fishing village (now primarily a summer tourist attraction) and
when walking the coastal paths get really envious of people who have
marvelous properties with glorious views close to the edge of the sea.
Then you learn that some of these people have real concerns about
rising sea levels and coastal erosion to which some properties,
similar to theirs, have already actually been lost over the years.
Still, I feel pretty sure I would be prepared to live knowing my home
could be endangered by certain extreme prevailing weather conditions
if the property was in an otherwise particularly desirable location.
Within limits, of course, but I think a certain amount of risk is an
acceptable price to pay for a really nice place.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.