Nuxx:A04b5d36-1c0d-40bd-80ed-728273d220a2@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com

Path: number6.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Victoria (Australia) - recent report on cycling casualties Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 02:11:25 -0700 (PDT) References: <6fd18b8e-c512-4d00-aa2b-6b097ef1f8e9@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> Lines: 14 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.248.79 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1239441085 591 127.0.0.1 (11 Apr 2009 09:11:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:11:25 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.248.79; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.8) Gecko/2009032609 Firefox/3.0.8 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 2020 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:694551

On Apr 6, 12:28=A0am, Squashme  wrote: > "restricting access for bicycle riders to major roads with high-speed > vehicles, especially in peak periods =97 may not be well received by > cyclists." Mustn't interfere with those high-speed vehicles of course.

Why not exactly? There are plenty of places where cyclists are allowed to go and motorists aren't. What is so bad about having a few places (other than motorways and special DCs) where cyclists are banned for the safety of themselves and others?

Once again we have this attitude that "no restrictions, however sensible, should *ever* be placed on cyclists simply because they're using a morally superior form of transport". It's an attitude which is extremely unhelpful, to say the least.