Comment 92866

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted October 02, 2013 at 14:46:39

The most bizarre comment in this whole shocking saga is Ferguson's claim that wider sidewalks and cycle lanes (and the reduction in the number of lanes dedicated to motor vehicles) is some sort of "safety risk":

"Why do you want to put public safety at risk?" he asked. "These are arterial roads. They serve the entire city, not just one neighbourhood."

Leaving aside the fact, for the moment, that cycle lanes and wider sidewalks increase safety for cyclists and pedestrians, slowing traffic also makes driving safer for motorists.

Whitehead's complaint about "inconvenience" for mountain residents is at least a rational concern (if unjustified by the actual traffic volumes).

Ferguson's "safety" concern in inexplicable, unless it is some sort of inept attempt at concern trolling. Maybe he was thinking about the road rage that will be generated by some drivers at the thought that they are "losing" their longstanding entitlements to barrel through the city unimpeded ... and will also have to watch out for more pedestrians and cyclists who have the temerity to venture out onto their unjustifiably luxurious cycle lanes and sidewalks.

Has he ever attempted to actually walk along Main Street west of Hess or East of Wellington, with young children? It is a frightening experience ... quite apart from the economic dead zones it has created.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2013-10-02 14:52:29

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds