tom wrote:

Agreed, this is the only argument against barriers which actually holds
any weight.

But it holds so /much/ weight the fact that it's the only one is a moot
point.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-barrier because I would much rather they
weren't there, I don't like them at all. But I understand why they are
there.

So do I, but that doesn't make it a good decision. By stopping people
who shouldn't be there you discriminate against people who should be.
Allowing people who should be there should have greater priority in the
matter, IMHO.

I strongly disagree with this. I felt much more comfortable cycling on
roads after starting on off-road paths and it didn't give me the
impression that cycles don't belong on roads. How are Joe and Jane public
different from me?

Because most of them don't cycle very much at all, taking their overview
of cycling from looking at other people doing it, and from flagship
media projects like Sustrans and political parties saying they're pro
cycling and will make it safe by building cycle paths. Which is why so
many people in the UK have the false impression that cycling is terribly
dangerous, when the DfT's statistics show it is clearly not so.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/