Frank Krygowski[_2_]
March 9th 11, 05:20 PM
On Mar 9, 7:36*am, Peter Cole > wrote:
>
> Frank attempts to dismiss facilities on any grounds simply
> because he opposes them on principle.
That is false. Anyone can read where I've written in favor of certain
facilities, and where I've mentioned several times the ones I actively
worked for.
I am against facilities that are badly designed. I am also against
the false propaganda claiming it's unsafe to ride a bicycle on
ordinary roads. I'm further against the idea (stated by you) that
riding among any car traffic at all is "not at all" pleasant.
> Safety isn't an issue in absolute terms, nor in relative, given that the
> improvement in safety given by increased numbers is the dominant effect.
As I've said before: It's immoral to actively endanger individual
cyclists (by luring them into dangerous facilities) in order to
increase safety for the aggregate. Bicyclists should not be treated
as foot soldiers, and expected to risk their lives for some potential
common good.
> I only need to compare facility-free Boston and facilitated Portland to
> see that. I'll take Portland, thank you. You guys ride where you like,
> no one is forcing you to use a facility.
Seems to me your logic is calling for you to move to Portland or
Copenhagen and ride there. No one is forcing you to try to screw up
Boston or any other city.
- Frank Krygowski
>
> Frank attempts to dismiss facilities on any grounds simply
> because he opposes them on principle.
That is false. Anyone can read where I've written in favor of certain
facilities, and where I've mentioned several times the ones I actively
worked for.
I am against facilities that are badly designed. I am also against
the false propaganda claiming it's unsafe to ride a bicycle on
ordinary roads. I'm further against the idea (stated by you) that
riding among any car traffic at all is "not at all" pleasant.
> Safety isn't an issue in absolute terms, nor in relative, given that the
> improvement in safety given by increased numbers is the dominant effect.
As I've said before: It's immoral to actively endanger individual
cyclists (by luring them into dangerous facilities) in order to
increase safety for the aggregate. Bicyclists should not be treated
as foot soldiers, and expected to risk their lives for some potential
common good.
> I only need to compare facility-free Boston and facilitated Portland to
> see that. I'll take Portland, thank you. You guys ride where you like,
> no one is forcing you to use a facility.
Seems to me your logic is calling for you to move to Portland or
Copenhagen and ride there. No one is forcing you to try to screw up
Boston or any other city.
- Frank Krygowski