Comment 90735

By matthewsweet (registered) | Posted August 09, 2013 at 15:23:58

The Cycling Committee is being conflated somewhat in the comments on this article with "the City" as a corporate entity on the whole. Why should the recommendation of the Cycling Committee in this instance be held up beside pedestrian measures like "cross on other side" signage? Further, the Cycling Committee only provides recommendations and does not institute anything. You may disagree with the recommendation, but they were presented with a problem and proposed a solution. I agree completely with movedtohamilton. Instead of publicly lynching the Committee and calling names, get in touch with them and offer some different options. Jason's suggestions are very good ones and would do better to address the problem while also maintaining accessibility as raised by Michelle.

Ultimately, the conflicts created between the various users of multi-use trails is a serious issue when the number of users increases. It is interesting to think about this within the context of the article Ryan posted a few days ago about protected, separated cycle tracks. Cycling and pedestrians should be separated in much the same way that vehicles and cyclists should be separated. What creates the most dangerous situations is the difference in speeds between modes of transportation. Multi-use trails create those situations by definition, especially when use increases.

By moylek (registered) - website Posted March 18, 2013 at 16:04:11 in reply to Comment 87287

The world will make more sense to you, Capitalist, when you start seeing a world full of people instead of cardboard stereotypes.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds