---- Robbie Webber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, they are on a MULTI-USE PATH and all users need to yield to > slower users. When we are on the road, we expect cars to wait until it > is safe to pass us on our bikes. When people are using the path, they > expect, it should operate that faster users wait until it is safe to > pass slower users.
To complete the analogy, on the street, cars expect us not to take up the entire right-of-way unless it's necessary, and not to change direction unpredictably into their paths, and not to stop completely in the right-of-way. Yes, this does happen on the street, but it's the exception. On multi-use paths, it's the rule. Of course, where the analogy breaks down is that, when there's even the slightest hint of congestion, or conflict of use of this kind, on any street, the immediate response is to "improve" it by paving it wider. "Arteries" are typically at least two lanes in each direction, and there's no shortage of 3-lane-each-direction roads, many of them divided. I have yet to see a two- or three-lane-each-direction multi-use path, divided or otherwise. Hmm, maybe something like this could be worked into the "bye-bye Eastwood" plan. --------------- Paul T. O'Leary Chronic Nuisance Madison, WI USA _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
