Sign in or 

wynnem |
Latest page update: made by wynnem
, Feb 20 2009, 2:48 PM EST
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by wynnem
40 words added view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
None
More Info: links to this page
|
| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ubrayj02 | I think this is the wrong focus of public funds. | 4 | Mar 12 2009, 3:25 PM EDT by elemunjeli | ||
|
Thread started: Feb 24 2009, 5:41 AM EST
Watch
The social movement that has grown in the past few years around bicycling is NOT a recreational movement it is one based our bicycling as a means of transportation.
A 2002 MTA survey of cyclists found that bike riders most commonly ride on the same arterial streets and commercial areas frequented by motorists. one of the things L.A. lacks are facilities to encourage cycling ON THE STREET - where bikes belong. Further, off-road bike trails and paths are not considered "roads" - and so L.A. is not liable for injuries incurred by lack of maintenance of these non-road roads. Whereas, when cyclists use the streets, they are protected (by law but not nec. by practice) from negligence to maintain a wellpaved street. Further still, the benefits of public spending on cycling are most effective when spent to slow car traffic in residential and commercial districts - as this benefit to cycling also typically spurs commercial foot traffic and increase livability amongst residents. |
|||||