On Nov 19, 12:37*pm, Peter Clinch wrote:
KingOfTheApes wrote:
OK, let's say not everybody is "tough." Let's admit some people are
"chicken" or that they are just bothered by traffic noise... so they
need bike paths. Let's assume also that families with kids are not
tough enough for the roads, so they can have an space along the
ckicken.

Look at the NL, again. *Plenty of places with no fietspads, yet
still families and kids out on bikes. *Which takes you back to
respect being more important than bike paths.

Not on major streets. It depends whether you are talking about a
bikeable place or just a "hole"...

(and there's a lot of people living in it, see poll)

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=487455

Now the question is how many decades we will take to make drivers, who
are used to the law of the jungle, more civilized? Perhaps never,
unless we use the whip (cameras and other traffic calming measures).


Of course, it woudn't be a revolution to create bike paths but to
protect the weaker species of the capitalist jungle, ie, those who are
unwilling or unable to drive SUVs.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that unless
you can get rid of junctions between roads and bike paths, and you
can't, bike paths don't protect you from SUVs, or indeed any other
traffic passing through junctions. *And the more bikes aren't part
of their more general road experience the more dangerous those
junctions will be.

Bike paths have their place, can be useful and can certainly be
pleasurable, but they're not much of an answer to cycling safety.

OK, we don't seem to disagree, perhaps just a matter of degree.