On 11/10/2007, at 2:28 AM, Dan Minettte wrote: > >> What you're saying is that the weak should give up their rights to >> the strong. > > Actually, while "asking for trouble" is a poor choice of words, I > don't > think that he's advocating that the weak should give up rights to the > strong. I don't consider riding on any particular road a > fundamental right. > I don't think the prohibition of bikes on freeways, for example, is > a step > on the way to a loss of liberty.
You're right in that freeways are a class of road which are reserved for fast traffic. You're wrong in that urban roads are for *all* traffic, and on roads in which all traffic is entitled (including horses...), then it *is* a fundamental right, and banning cycle traffic from urban streets (which, as I said, has actually been suggested recently). Incidentally, paved urban roads were mainly introduced in towns as a result of the bicycle, not the car... I'm all for good urban planning to give cyclists genuine alternatives to major roads, and if the proposed Bicycle Network in Melbourne is ever completed, it'll separate much of the motorised from the HPV traffic. That's a good thing. But in the meantime, people have the right to use whatever form of transport they choose within the law, and without fear of being targeted and muscled off the road. Charlie _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
