06-11-2017, 11:46 PM
(06-11-2017, 09:51 PM)Smore Wrote:(06-11-2017, 08:29 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: Better than nothing. Wow talk about a Debbie downer.
two things here:
1) "Better than nothing" isn't really true...sometimes nothing is better, especially when there is an illusion of something. But there are plenty of others here who can elaborate the "why" of this better than I could.
2) Not sure what the "Debbie Downer" is about. If it's about the first sentence, reportedly there is some "bug" whereby Canard can't see Dan's messages unless they are quoted. If its about the discontinuity of bike lanes, than that is a true statement, and I'm not sure when Dan is a "Debbie Downer" for noting it...
Thanks.
You're absolutely right. Bad big infra can be worse than nothing, people don't use it, then people who wish to argue against bike infrastructure (or even don't want to but still see it) can point to it and say, cyclists don't use it anyway.
And when it comes to something that "looks" like bike infra, but which isn't, or is poorly designed, drivers are even more likely to be offended or act aggressively when cyclists aren't using what appears to be a bike lane, even if there are good reasons why they shouldn't.
Worse, cyclists, who may have been bullied into bad positions on the road, by misleading lines and aggressive drivers, might even be hurt because they aren't actually in a real bike lane. (Again, much of this is mitigated by the reality that our actual bike lanes are often very poorly designed as well, well, maybe mitigated isn't the right word)
This is also very easy for those of us who are confident cyclists to forget, because we may feel more confident dealing with this situation.
I'm sure "Debbie downer" is about my "negativity" towards the "bike lanes"...which is fine for him to have that opinion of me, but I do think it's unfair. I'm trying to accurately portray the situation, in a forum which I hope is fairly reasonable. I'm not trying to be negative, I'm trying to be realistic and accurate.