What Motorist Advocacy Does For Cycling

On 3/9/2011 7:36 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

I don't doubt that if Boston shoe-horns in a few door-zone bike lanes,
and a few more bike lanes to the right of right-turn-only-lanes,
they'll get a few more bicyclists riding in those lanes. A few might
even give their lives for the cause, like the one famous Cambridge
cyclist did in that door zone. But I don't think it's the right
approach, and I don't think it's ever going to make Boston into
Copenhagen.

Nice, use some poor girl's death to support your inflammatory rhetoric
-- without proof, of course.

It's called evidence.

There is no evidence that the bike lane was causal in that incident.

Examples of the danger of bad facilities abound.
Maybe you'd take more notice if he'd cited a case of someone having to
swerve to avoid being hit, instead of someone who actually was.

I don't see your point.

Why is it that when a cyclist is killed or injured using a facility that
it's the fault of the facility but if a cyclist is killed or injured
"taking the lane" then the cyclist or the driver are at fault but it's
not possible that "controlling the lane didn't work? "

If someone parks their car where there's a bike lane to the left of them
then they should expect bikes on their left. When I lived in Boston
there were not many bike lanes at all and people still got doored.