On 4/4/2021 6:42 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2021 6:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 12:16:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2021 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:
I'm not yelling at you although I do get tired of the
incessant "safety inflation" rant when people buy
something that makes it easier for them to ride...

I think "safety inflation" is real. It applies not only
to bicycles,
it's pervasive in modern American society; I can probably
give dozens of
examples. I own books on related topics.

But it certainly does apply to bicycles and bicycling, in
many ways that
have nothing to do with making it easier to ride. Again,
I can give
examples, although you can certainly think of them yourself.

I don't know why this observation is so distasteful to you.

A question comes to mind here. If special paths/roads/call
'em what
you like, are necessary for the safety of cyclists isn't
it proof that
the public highways are dangerious for cyclists?

That's what a certain cohort would have you believe. And
it's generally false. Yes, there are dangerous roads; but
most roads are quite safe for cycling.

The question viewed from the opposite direction is "if public
roads/etc., are safe for cyclists are special bike paths
necessary?"

Most such facilities are not necessary. Many are worse than
normal roads.


I believe this site is no longer updated for reasons other
than any lack of new examples:

http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of.../March2019.htm

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971