tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post3040046210990399622..comments2023-04-03T03:29:32.895+01:00Comments on The Desegregated Cyclist: Are Bicycle Zealots Running Over Common Sense?Ian Brett Cooperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11144195897514392433noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-53875115600690336532012-09-23T00:46:46.462+01:002012-09-23T00:46:46.462+01:00Well, roads appeared in their current form before ...Well, roads appeared in their current form before cars were even invented, and cars are usually about 6-7ft wide, whereas the standard lane width is 11ft - that's nearly twice as wide as a car and hardly " just a little wider". Cyclists had a lot to do with the design of roads when they led the Good Roads Movement in the 1890s and the 11ft width is actually perfect for bicycles, for a number of reasons, as has been discussed in an earlier blog post here at the Desegregated Cyclist. Here's the link:<br /><br />http://ianbrettcooper.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-cyclists-need-standard-width-lane.html<br /><br />Parking spaces, I'll grant you, are designed for cars, but that's because the need for these things only came to be well after cars were invented. Signs and lights are placed where they can be seen by all, not just by motorists. Traffic lights are activated by any metal over the sensor, and bicycles activate them if the sensors are correctly calibrated. If they are not, the city/county/state DOT has to come out and fix the error. They would hardly come out if the sensors were only required to be activated by cars.<br /><br />So you are clearly wrong. Today's roads are designed for all users and not just for cars. If roads were built for cars, lane widths would be the same width as garage doors - 8-9ft, and the inflexibility of such a system would mean there would be be a heck of a lot more accidents on the road.Ian Brett Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11144195897514392433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-30042555824835600022012-09-22T20:10:56.969+01:002012-09-22T20:10:56.969+01:00"Finally, the author fails to recognize that ..."Finally, the author fails to recognize that roads are not designed for any particular type of vehicle - they are designed for ALL vehicles." <br /><br />-- Do you really believe that? I agree that (in California anyway, certainly not everywhere) cyclists have the same legal right to the road as motorists do, but the vast majority of roadways are clearly _designed_ for motorists. Just look at the standard lane width. Funny how it's just a little wider than a car. Likewise for parking spaces. Coincidence? The placement of signs and lights, car-activated by traffic lights, etc., etc.<br /><br />Today's roads *are* designed far cars, face it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-74477709010623565942012-09-16T16:42:05.243+01:002012-09-16T16:42:05.243+01:00Proof again that we can work across the aisle, Ste...Proof again that we can work across the aisle, Steve. Khalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11866897914538110672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-88259034475476318562012-09-16T16:25:49.981+01:002012-09-16T16:25:49.981+01:00Bikeolounger, you had me rolling on the floor. Tha...Bikeolounger, you had me rolling on the floor. That indeed is what the Internet has proven.Khalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11866897914538110672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-78235493379164802752012-09-15T19:36:38.220+01:002012-09-15T19:36:38.220+01:00Reading that tripe, I felt I couldn't left you...Reading that tripe, I felt I couldn't left you lefties have all the fun...Steve Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13650405341304401203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-90591353547793627902012-09-15T15:32:41.884+01:002012-09-15T15:32:41.884+01:00Thanks for the chuckle, Khal! I'm reminded of ...Thanks for the chuckle, Khal! I'm reminded of what became my favorite quote regarding the internet, first seen over ten years ago. To paraphrase: "It used to be said that an infinite number of monkeys in a room with an infinite number of typewriters could replicate the works of William Shakespeare. The internet has proved this assumption false."bikeoloungerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04882697958338881886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-58416803933262051012012-09-14T22:54:24.750+01:002012-09-14T22:54:24.750+01:00I think you nailed it with your link to hack journ...I think you nailed it with your link to hack journalism. Anyone can put out a blog and call it journalism. I prefer to just call it a blog, and another person ranting into the Internet. Katie is a looker, but I'm not impressed by the rant.<br /><br />At the risk of being hoist on my own petard:<br />http://www.despair.com/blogging.htmlKhalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11866897914538110672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-25494117568730807442012-09-14T15:49:33.482+01:002012-09-14T15:49:33.482+01:00Thanks Khal.
I posted an earlier version over the...Thanks Khal.<br /><br />I posted an earlier version over there, but they didn't publish it for a while, so I figured they'd deleted it. So I added it to my blog and by the time I checked back over there, my comments had appeared there. Silly impatient me.<br /><br />But I've been tweaking it over here and I think it's a better piece as it appears here. I should stop tweaking, as I have a tendency to ramble on.Ian Brett Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11144195897514392433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-27662244656542395312012-09-14T13:21:11.943+01:002012-09-14T13:21:11.943+01:00Gawd, that was a dumb article, Ian. I suggested in...Gawd, that was a dumb article, Ian. I suggested in the comments section that Cal Watchdog readers wander over here and read your piece.Khalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11866897914538110672noreply@blogger.com