Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Daytime running light popularity
Date: 31 Oct 2024 13:04:46 GMT
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <lohdjeFsodlU1@mid.individual.net>
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>
 <hbu6ijlfnuen1hnd4pj2dm2t2kdlnvednh@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net LOgnv1Br0C7Ubd2uFA1gQA9hve3ZAcABUogpqjQIl6c7dmqsPz
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FH8eCzhMyDgttV88qXdPsbMNu3A= sha1:NroJqqMxxU7DdlOaU8+zp2SLqdk= sha256:2548uRjmPOU/1HAkhu8061kPjT6dxv0KRC/09+HBzQ4=
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Bytes: 5325

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
> 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.

Regarding media that’s a rather narrow and sometimes loud minority, I’ve
not seen any calls for daytime bike light regulation, helmet regulation
certainly in the uk always fails on the for a population the evidence
suggests zero effect so the cost of regulation and enforcement isn’t
warranted.


> 
>> 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
> 

Roger Merriman