Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running light popularity
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 08:38:07 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <hbu6ijlfnuen1hnd4pj2dm2t2kdlnvednh@4ax.com>
References: <iu2vhj1ugsv8hpjf6nuctvc30nvp8ui6ic@4ax.com> <vfo9c8$11b5f$5@dont-email.me> <bxTTO.1036849$XGr1.739097@fx10.ams4> <vfp5pr$16vjk$5@dont-email.me> <4sVTO.346097$QvZa.316348@fx08.ams4> <vfph86$18sdr$1@dont-email.me> <vfqlra$1iboc$1@dont-email.me> <vfqvpj$1k5ac$2@dont-email.me> <NSaUO.1616985$qP12.22231@fx02.ams4> <vftsjb$28o3c$1@dont-email.me> <lofuepFm2ajU1@mid.individual.net> <upe6ijhkodv08bhefpaqnidn7kq5g8vc13@4ax.com> <lohb0fFsd4rU1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 13:38:10 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="298a302d1beefa27036562fd45e5adec";
	logging-data="2840497"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/M6NT3iSC4+2sQb2OFut//zgApMrG4IPg="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oBc9iGN86NzYwBarqkSfux2/gB4=
Bytes: 4964

On 31 Oct 2024 12:20:31 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:

>Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>> On 30 Oct 2024 23:40:09 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/2024 12:40 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> <snip>
>>>> 
>>>>> Not if there are paths etc that connect up, some of the older estates etc
>>>>> have this, plus newer Low Traffic Areas ie making it awkward to use by car
>>>>> as cut through but filters allow pedestrians/cycle etc to pass through.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But again depends on who and what you design for.
>>>> 
>>>> From personal experience I can tell you that residents often object to 
>>>> bicycle infrastructure, including multi-use paths, protected bicycle 
>>>> lanes, pedestrian/bicycle bridges, and passageways between 
>>>> neighborhoods, but once they are in place they like them and none of the 
>>>> problems that they were worried about happen.
>>>> 
>>>> There was one bridge in my area 
>>>> <https://maps.app.goo.gl/wZxHdbrY8heYSDir9> that was closed because it 
>>>> was unsafe. It provides a safe route to local schools. The residents on 
>>>> one side of the bridge were very much against it being rebuilt, for a 
>>>> variety of reasons that had no basis in fact. Now it's open, well-used 
>>>> by both students and others wanting to access the park it goes into.
>>>> 
>>>> A proposed multi-use path along a creek had residents whose houses 
>>>> backed up to the creek furious since they had believed that the access 
>>>> road, that became the path, would never be open to the public (even 
>>>> though it had been open in the past but without a nice trail). Once the 
>>>> trail was completed it was fine and no one complains anymore 
>>>> <https://maps.app.goo.gl/5pCeHZSPM1b9uts7A>. Some of the objections to 
>>>> the trail were quite amusing. One woman said that there would be 
>>>> teenagers engaging in "hanky-panky" on the trail. Another woman said 
>>>> that vultures would pick up babies and fly away with them. Some 
>>>> residents said that criminals would jump the fences and break into their 
>>>> homes, though the reality is that criminals prefer to drive to their 
>>>> targets to burglarize them.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> There is consistent curve, ie initial alarm and well change which people
>>> dislike, but generally people like this n so it curves back to we like
>>> this!
>>> 
>>> Hence political will is needed! And steady heads ie don?t just listen to
>>> the minority with loud voices!
>>> 
>>> Roger Merriman
>> 
>> Arguing against multi-use paths is useless. People want them and
>> they're going to be built. That said, I absolutely oppose mandatory
>> use of them, although I see no sense in bicycling on streets and roads
>> when there is an acceptable non-vehicle path available. 
>
>I assume you mean that a cyclist would be mandated to use a bike lane/multy
>use path? If so I think you’d find universal agreement!

You would think so, at least among cyclists, but I see cyclists
attempting to mandate helmets, daytime lights, an such. Krygowski is
correct in that protectionist do-gooders are out there...  although he
doesn't understand that he is one of them.

>The use of law for that purpose is very much a car centric approach see
>Germany for example.
>> 
>> Yes, I understand that acceptable is subjective evaluation, which is
>> one reason why I oppose mandatory use of MUPs.
>> 
>> --
>> C'est bon
>> Soloman
>> 
>
>Roger Merriman

--
C'est bon
Soloman