Comment 94760

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted November 15, 2013 at 09:30:17 in reply to Comment 94757

Yeah, that.

If they'd left out the double-centre and had built it the minimum possible width for 2 cars as an obvious money-saving measure? I'd be defending them. Beckett Drive is obviously very expensive to maintain and every foot of width of that road represents a large investment in reinforcing the terrain beneath. So if they'd gone for the bare-minimum width at the expense of cyclists and pedestrians? Well, it would suck, but at least it would be justifiable.

But that double-line thing? The wide lanes? That's ludicrous. It's encouraging dangerous speeds on a road that can't afford them, at the expense of cyclists, pedestrians, and taxpayers. If putting in bike lanes and bus lanes and pedestrian facilities is a "war on cars", what do you call that infernal thing?

A single sidewalk-width path for upbound cyclists and pedestrians would've been a huge improvement. Put a sign at the bottom explaining that cyclists can use the path but must dismount for pedestrians, and a sign at the top that cyclists must take the road going down. It would be mediocre but better than nothing and wouldn't take that much space. Cyclists going up that hill aren't going fast enough to be a threat to pedestrian safety anyways.

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2013-11-15 09:41:06

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools