Re: Daytime running light popularity

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On 31 Oct 2024 12:20:31 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
 

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On 30 Oct 2024 23:40:09 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
 

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

On 10/29/2024 12:40 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
 
<snip>
 

Not if there are paths etc that connect up, some of the older estates etc
have this, plus newer Low Traffic Areas ie making it awkward to use by car
as cut through but filters allow pedestrians/cycle etc to pass through.
 
But again depends on who and what you design for.

 
From personal experience I can tell you that residents often object to
bicycle infrastructure, including multi-use paths, protected bicycle
lanes, pedestrian/bicycle bridges, and passageways between
neighborhoods, but once they are in place they like them and none of the
problems that they were worried about happen.
 
There was one bridge in my area
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/wZxHdbrY8heYSDir9> that was closed because it
was unsafe. It provides a safe route to local schools. The residents on
one side of the bridge were very much against it being rebuilt, for a
variety of reasons that had no basis in fact. Now it's open, well-used
by both students and others wanting to access the park it goes into.
 
A proposed multi-use path along a creek had residents whose houses
backed up to the creek furious since they had believed that the access
road, that became the path, would never be open to the public (even
though it had been open in the past but without a nice trail). Once the
trail was completed it was fine and no one complains anymore
<https://maps.app.goo.gl/5pCeHZSPM1b9uts7A>. Some of the objections to
the trail were quite amusing. One woman said that there would be
teenagers engaging in "hanky-panky" on the trail. Another woman said
that vultures would pick up babies and fly away with them. Some
residents said that criminals would jump the fences and break into their
homes, though the reality is that criminals prefer to drive to their
targets to burglarize them.
 

 
There is consistent curve, ie initial alarm and well change which people
dislike, but generally people like this n so it curves back to we like
this!
 
Hence political will is needed! And steady heads ie don?t just listen to
the minority with loud voices!
 
Roger Merriman

 
Arguing against multi-use paths is useless. People want them and
they're going to be built. That said, I absolutely oppose mandatory
use of them, although I see no sense in bicycling on streets and roads
when there is an acceptable non-vehicle path available.

 
I assume you mean that a cyclist would be mandated to use a bike lane/multy
use path? If so I think you’d find universal agreement!

 
You would think so, at least among cyclists, but I see cyclists
attempting to mandate helmets, daytime lights, an such. Krygowski is
correct in that protectionist do-gooders are out there...  although he
doesn't understand that he is one of them.

Regarding media that’s a rather narrow and sometimes loud minority, I’ve
not seen any calls for daytime bike light regulation, helmet regulation
certainly in the uk always fails on the for a population the evidence
suggests zero effect so the cost of regulation and enforcement isn’t
warranted.

 

The use of law for that purpose is very much a car centric approach see
Germany for example.

 
Yes, I understand that acceptable is subjective evaluation, which is
one reason why I oppose mandatory use of MUPs.
 
--
C'est bon
Soloman
 

 
Roger Merriman

 
--
C'est bon
Soloman
 

Roger Merriman