From: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder)
Subject: Re: Interesting facts about bicycles in Ontario (from MoT)
Reply-To: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:51:03 GMT

In <1992Jul30.005554.22361@cs.mcgill.ca> wheelan@cs.mcgill.ca (Bill HEELAN) writes:

>From article <schinder.712428670@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov>, by schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder):
>[...]
>> How can you claim a right to use the road if you're unwilling to give
>> it to others?

>    Gee, then why don't we make the pedestrians use the roads, too?

But I *do* use the roads when I walk to work.  I view sidewalks with
the same disgust as I do bike paths (I do use them at times, but I
don't like it).  They are built to get pedestrians out of the way of
motorists, without actually increasing the safety of walking.  Just as
on a bicycle, if motorists see you you're (reasonably) safe.  They
don't bother looking for anything when they blitz across the sidewalk
(or for that matter bike paths).  They don't have to, no matter what
the law says, and they know it.

>    What people are complaining about is that on both roads and sidewalks
>	cyclists are second class citizens.  If cyclists are expected to ride on
>	the roads then roads should be designed and maintained with that in
>	mind.  How many are, including new ones?  As well, cyclists shouldn't be

Why, all of them I've ever ridden on.  The problem is not the roads (I
always laugh when someone tells me the "roads are dangerous").  The
problem is law breaking motorists.  Period.

>	discriminated against in terms of road rights.  The same argument also
>	applies to sidewalks.  Although, the idea of cyclists using the
>	sidewalks in Montreal (and a few try), or any place I've seen, is
>	ludicrous.

No, that's not what people are bitching about.  They're not bitching
that cyclists are second class citizens.  They're bitching because
pedestrians aren't an inferior class.  They're making the same (almost
word for word) kind of whining noises about pedestrians that motorists
make about cyclists.

>    If none of these solutions seem appealing then build bike paths.  In
>	fact, if the bike path system were as extensive as the road system I'd
>	probably use it exclusively.  Again, what are the chances of that
>	happening?

Would you?  I certainly wouldn't.  Bike paths are dangerous.  I feel
much safer on the roads.  So long as automobiles are allowed to cross
bike paths, I'll feel that way.

>    The basic problem is that pedestrians, cyclists and cars do not easily
>	coexist.  Each has different needs.  Do you believe that cycling is an
>	inherently inferior form of transportation?  If not, you have to give
>	them an adequate place to ride.

No, but apparently you *do*, since you'd rather have inferior
facilities to ride on than to use the public right of ways, and you
say that "cyclists and cars do not easily coexist".  I easily coexist,
when walking, riding and driving.

IMHO, our position should be consistent.  Roads are for *people*, not
machines.  *People* should be protected by law enforcement officials,
not machines (it all too often looks to me that they're more
interested in damage to cars than damage to people).  Government can
put reasonable requirements on machines so far as safety equipment is
concerned (I'd have no objection, to, say, requiring pedestrians to
wear lights at night).  But restrictions on classes of vehicles and
the types of vehicles particular individuals can operate should be
based on the danger they present to other all road users, not on the
convenience of one class of vehicle operators.

>

>                                                    - Bill
--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles