At 07:33 AM Thursday 10/11/2007, Charlie Bell wrote: >On 11/10/2007, at 2:28 AM, Dan Minettte wrote: > > > >> What you're saying is that the weak should give up their rights to > >> the strong. > > > > Actually, while "asking for trouble" is a poor choice of words, I > > don't > > think that he's advocating that the weak should give up rights to the > > strong. I don't consider riding on any particular road a > > fundamental right. > > I don't think the prohibition of bikes on freeways, for example, is > > a step > > on the way to a loss of liberty. > >You're right in that freeways are a class of road which are reserved >for fast traffic. You're wrong in that urban roads are for *all* >traffic, and on roads in which all traffic is entitled (including >horses...), then it *is* a fundamental right, and banning cycle >traffic from urban streets (which, as I said, has actually been >suggested recently). Incidentally, paved urban roads were mainly >introduced in towns as a result of the bicycle, not the car... > >I'm all for good urban planning
I think the problem is that in the majority of cases that is an oxymoron not "good urban planning" but simply "urban planning. IOW, one of the biggest problems most urban road networks suffer from is that they "just growed" rather than being planned from the start and then having the plan stuck to from then on. Is there any way to create true "good urban planning" short of leveling the entire city and starting over from scratch with a plan that is somehow ironclad for all time? (Frex, look at Denver, where you find two rectangular grids of roads, one of them rotated by an acute angle wrt the other, superimposed on the downtown area. And that's probably simpler than some other cities. OTOH, Salt Lake City and other cities in Utah were originally laid out on a rectangular grid with wide streets, although over time other roads have added.) > to give cyclists genuine alternatives >to major roads, and if the proposed Bicycle Network in Melbourne is >ever completed, it'll separate much of the motorised from the HPV which could also stand for "High Profile Vehicle," i.e., the ones which are subject to being blown off the road or over on their sides when it gets windy . . . >traffic. That's a good thing. But in the meantime, people have the >right to use whatever form of transport they choose within the law, >and without fear of being targeted and muscled off the road. > >Charlie -- Ronn! :) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
