Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Catrike Ryder Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: Daytime running light popularity Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 04:34:55 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 60 Message-ID: References:

<4sVTO.346097$QvZa.316348@fx08.ams4>

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 09:34:58 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="298a302d1beefa27036562fd45e5adec"; logging-data="2763596"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19R0anYRwD96icukVh5NJgtiisTFoKHXaA=" User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272 Cancel-Lock: sha1:9FktDYtZfBtmfqz4Tmf+rR2UZE4= Bytes: 4203 On 30 Oct 2024 23:40:09 GMT, Roger Merriman wrote: >sms wrote: >> On 10/29/2024 12:40 PM, Roger Merriman wrote: >> >> >> >>> 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 >> 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 >> . 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. Yes, I understand that acceptable is subjective evaluation, which is one reason why I oppose mandatory use of MUPs. -- C'est bon Soloman