<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: City plans to ease traffic on Rosecrans by studying the problem</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bikesd.org/2009/12/city-plans-to-ease-traffic-on-rosecrans-by-studying-the-problem/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bikesd.org/2009/12/city-plans-to-ease-traffic-on-rosecrans-by-studying-the-problem/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:06:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fred</title>
		<link>http://www.bikesd.org/2009/12/city-plans-to-ease-traffic-on-rosecrans-by-studying-the-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-542</link>
		<dc:creator>Fred</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:25:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bikesd.org/?p=804#comment-542</guid>
		<description>Again with the one sided point of view on safety on the part of the City.

As a cyclist, I do want to be safe. However, I don&#039;t agree with how safety is implemented. Bicycle boulevards, bicycles lanes not in the door zone, and better traffic enforcement for aggressive drivers are things that make me safe. Denying me access to a street doesn&#039;t make me any safer.

This kind of safety is like just banning automobiles all together. Nobody would want that despite the great increase in safety.

I don&#039;t know how to put this are who to tell this to, but this is something that&#039;s been bugging me for years: the patronizing and anti-cycling view towards bicycle safety. 

Plus, I really feel that this emphasis on safety is a distraction from what cyclists really want. Mobility. There are many streets we can&#039;t ride on that are illegal. 

Again, how to get mobility into the debate rather than this obsession with safety?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Again with the one sided point of view on safety on the part of the City.</p>
<p>As a cyclist, I do want to be safe. However, I don&#8217;t agree with how safety is implemented. Bicycle boulevards, bicycles lanes not in the door zone, and better traffic enforcement for aggressive drivers are things that make me safe. Denying me access to a street doesn&#8217;t make me any safer.</p>
<p>This kind of safety is like just banning automobiles all together. Nobody would want that despite the great increase in safety.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know how to put this are who to tell this to, but this is something that&#8217;s been bugging me for years: the patronizing and anti-cycling view towards bicycle safety. </p>
<p>Plus, I really feel that this emphasis on safety is a distraction from what cyclists really want. Mobility. There are many streets we can&#8217;t ride on that are illegal. </p>
<p>Again, how to get mobility into the debate rather than this obsession with safety?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

