Nuxx:4153e463-3366-4752-9618-8986398976df@i38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!i38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4153e463-3366-4752-9618-8986398976df@i38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: To Those who Don't Want Cycle Lanes Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 05:18:39 -0800 (PST) Lines: 12 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.251.173 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1234099119 7587 127.0.0.1 (8 Feb 2009 13:18:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 13:18:39 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: i38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.251.173; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.6) Gecko/2009011913 Firefox/3.0.6 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 1737 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:685309

What would you prefer in this case? To share lane 1 with traffic? What is wrong with segregating fast traffic and much slower bicycles in the way that they have done here? How about worrying less about cyclists "not being treated as proper traffic" and more about being practical and actually staying safe?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/October2008.htm

(I'm not talking about the sign, although I think its purpose - to warn motorists to expect cyclists on the sort of road where there wouldn't normally be many - is valid. Obviously it shouldn't be where it is though.)