On Nov 19, 3:22*pm, Dane Buson wrote:
In rec.bicycles.misc Peter Clinch wrote:

KingOfTheApes wrote:

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.

I'd have to agree, and I'll trot out my personal bete noire. *I think
one of the best ways to improve safety (in the U.S.) is to make getting
and keeping a license a *little* harder and a *little* more expensive.
As it is with $25 and a pulse, you can pretty much get a license.

That and retesting *everyone* every five years. *If you can't be
bothered to pay $50 instead of $25 (for example) and be tested on your
ability to pilot a two ton piece of machinery at high velocity, you
shouldn't be driving.

That might drop the bottom 5% and improve bike *and* pedestrian safety.


The same effect may be achievable by requiring a special license for
SUVs, which after all are "trucks."

Funny, they are trucks to go through the safety loopholes, but not to
require a license.